Your message dated Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:44:51 -0700
with message-id <>
and subject line Closing inactive Policy bugs
has caused the Debian Bug report #681562,
regarding debian-policy: Consolidate the definition of the "base system".
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact

Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist

Dear all,

the "base system" is defined in section 3.7 (chapter 3 describes binary
packages).  It consists of packages of priorities "required" and "important",
and these priorities are defined in section 2.5 (chapter 2 describes the Debian
archive).  The Policy contains the following additional statements about the
base system.

  The system-wide mail directory is <file>/var/mail</file>. This directory is
  part of the base system and should not be owned by any particular mail agents.

  The Debian base system provides the <prgn>tempfile</prgn> and
  <prgn>mktemp</prgn> utilities for use by scripts for this purpose.

  If a package needs any special device files that are not included in the base
  system, it must call <prgn>MAKEDEV</prgn> in the <prgn>postinst</prgn> script,
  after notifying the user.

  <footnote> The Debian base system already provides an editor and a pager
  program.  </footnote>

  The mail spool is part of the base system and not part of the MTA package.

I filed this bug as a reminder to try to consolidate the definition of
the "base system" in Policy version 4.


Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
control: user
control: usertag -1 +obsolete
control: tag -1 +wontfix

Russ Allbery and I did a round of in-person bug triage at DebConf17 and
we are closing this bug as inactive.

The reasons for closing fall into the following categories, from most
frequent to least frequent:

- issue is appropriate for Policy, there is a consensus on how to fix
  the problem, but preparing the patch is very time-consuming and no-one
  has volunteered to do it, and we do not judge the issue to be
  important enough to keep an open bug around;

- issue is appropriate for Policy but there does not yet exist a
  consensus on what should change, and no recent discussion.  A fresh
  discussion might allow us to reach consensus, and the messages in the
  old bug are unlikely to help very much; or

- issue is not appropriate for Policy.

If you feel this bug is still relevant and want to restart the
discussion, you can re-open the bug.  However, please consider instead
opening a new bug with a message that summarises and condenses the
previous discussion, updates the report for the current state of Debian,
and makes clear exactly what you think should change.

A lot of these old bugs have long side tangents and numerous messages,
and that old discussion is not necessarily helpful for figuring out what
Debian Policy should say today.

Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

--- End Message ---

Reply via email to