Bug#922654: debian-policy: Section 9.1.2 points to a wrong FHS section?
Hello, On Thu 11 Apr 2019 at 02:37PM +00, Linda Lapinlampi wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 02:35:26PM +, Linda Lapinlampi wrote: >> Just fyi: The debian/changelog file references section 9.11 incorrectly >> for UNRELEASED 4.3.0.4 version; the section should be 9.1.1. The commit >> has it correct. > > Actually, I think I was meant to say 9.1.2 for the changelog. Fixed, thanks. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#922654: debian-policy: Section 9.1.2 points to a wrong FHS section?
On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 10:21:29AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Mon 08 Apr 2019 at 11:13PM +00, Linda Lapinlampi wrote: > > > I'm attaching a patch, seems trivial. Here's the word-diff=plain to > > resolve typos. Hoping this is okay to merge as is, but more feedback is > > welcome. > > Thanks, applied. Just fyi: The debian/changelog file references section 9.11 incorrectly for UNRELEASED 4.3.0.4 version; the section should be 9.1.1. The commit has it correct.
Bug#922654: debian-policy: Section 9.1.2 points to a wrong FHS section?
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 02:35:26PM +, Linda Lapinlampi wrote: > Just fyi: The debian/changelog file references section 9.11 incorrectly > for UNRELEASED 4.3.0.4 version; the section should be 9.1.1. The commit > has it correct. Actually, I think I was meant to say 9.1.2 for the changelog.
Bug#922654: debian-policy: Section 9.1.2 points to a wrong FHS section?
control: tag -1 +pending Hello, On Mon 08 Apr 2019 at 11:13PM +00, Linda Lapinlampi wrote: > I'm attaching a patch, seems trivial. Here's the word-diff=plain to > resolve typos. Hoping this is okay to merge as is, but more feedback is > welcome. Thanks, applied. > This fixes those references to the new numbers found in the FHS 3.0 > document, **and thus fixes the typos.** I dropped the final clause because the problem was not a typographical error, at least how I understand that term. -- Sean Whitton
Bug#922654: debian-policy: Section 9.1.2 points to a wrong FHS section?
control: tags -1 + patch
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 05:45:29PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Mon 18 Feb 2019 at 11:54PM +00, Linda Lapinlampi wrote:
> > FHS 3.0's section 4.5 is about a completely irrelevant /usr/include
> > directory, not about /usr/local. I think this should point to section
> > 4.9 in the FHS?
>
> Thanks. A patch would be welcome.
Hi, apologies for the delay especially now that Buster is already in
full-freeze. :(
I'm attaching a patch, seems trivial. Here's the word-diff=plain to
resolve typos. Hoping this is okay to merge as is, but more feedback is
welcome.
diff --git a/policy/ch-opersys.rst b/policy/ch-opersys.rst
index 59c92ec..6e0c020 100644
--- a/policy/ch-opersys.rst
+++ b/policy/ch-opersys.rst
@@ -127,8 +127,8 @@ empty.
Note that this applies only to directories *below* ``/usr/local``, not
*in* ``/usr/local``. Packages must not create sub-directories in the
directory ``/usr/local`` itself, except those listed in FHS, section
[-4.5.-]{+4.9.+} However, you may create directories below them as you wish. You
must not remove any of the directories listed in [-4.5,-]{+4.9,+} even if you
created them.
If ``/etc/staff-group-for-usr-local`` does not exist, ``/usr/local``
>From 88353bf9931337efae5c06cad23306ff276d521e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Juuso \"Linda\" Lapinlampi"
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 22:53:48 +
Subject: [PATCH] ch-opersys: Update referenced sections to FHS 3.0
The policy says in section 9.1.1 all files and directories must comply
with Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS) 3.0. Later in section 9.1.2,
the references to FHS' section numbers were pointing to sections
apparently only sensible for an older FHS 2.3 document.
This fixes those references to the new numbers found in the FHS 3.0
document, and thus fixes the typos.
See: https://bugs.debian.org/922654
---
policy/ch-opersys.rst | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/policy/ch-opersys.rst b/policy/ch-opersys.rst
index 59c92ec..6e0c020 100644
--- a/policy/ch-opersys.rst
+++ b/policy/ch-opersys.rst
@@ -127,8 +127,8 @@ empty.
Note that this applies only to directories *below* ``/usr/local``, not
*in* ``/usr/local``. Packages must not create sub-directories in the
directory ``/usr/local`` itself, except those listed in FHS, section
-4.5. However, you may create directories below them as you wish. You
-must not remove any of the directories listed in 4.5, even if you
+4.9. However, you may create directories below them as you wish. You
+must not remove any of the directories listed in 4.9, even if you
created them.
If ``/etc/staff-group-for-usr-local`` does not exist, ``/usr/local``
--
2.20.1
Bug#922654: debian-policy: Section 9.1.2 points to a wrong FHS section?
Hello, On Mon 18 Feb 2019 at 11:54PM +00, Linda Lapinlampi wrote: > The policy says in section § 9.1.2. "Site-specific programs": > >> Packages must not create sub-directories in the directory /usr/local >> itself, except those listed in FHS, section 4.5. However, you may >> create directories below them as you wish. You must not remove any of >> the directories listed in 4.5, even if you created them. > > FHS 3.0's section 4.5 is about a completely irrelevant /usr/include > directory, not about /usr/local. I think this should point to section > 4.9 in the FHS? > > In FHS 2.3, this "section 4.5" might have been right. But as said in > policy 9.1.1: > >> The location of all files and directories must comply with the Filesystem >> Hierarchy Standard (FHS), version 3.0, [...]. > > No other exception is noted below that. Thanks. A patch would be welcome. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#922654: debian-policy: Section 9.1.2 points to a wrong FHS section?
Source: debian-policy Version: 4.3.0.2 Severity: normal The policy says in section § 9.1.2. "Site-specific programs": > Packages must not create sub-directories in the directory /usr/local > itself, except those listed in FHS, section 4.5. However, you may > create directories below them as you wish. You must not remove any of > the directories listed in 4.5, even if you created them. FHS 3.0's section 4.5 is about a completely irrelevant /usr/include directory, not about /usr/local. I think this should point to section 4.9 in the FHS? In FHS 2.3, this "section 4.5" might have been right. But as said in policy 9.1.1: > The location of all files and directories must comply with the Filesystem > Hierarchy Standard (FHS), version 3.0, [...]. No other exception is noted below that.
