Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 552757 ...
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to 'package':'debian-policy' usertags 552757 = informative Bug#552757: debian-policy: all caps must There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: informative. tags 552757 pending Bug #552757 [debian-policy] debian-policy: all caps must Added tag(s) pending. End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#552690: mknod-in-maintainer-script postinst:39
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes: On Thu, Oct 29 2009, Simon Horman wrote: Could you suggest a policy-compliant method of creating fifos for the package? At the time that I added mknod to the maintainer script the consensus that this was the best option available. You may use mkfifo instead of mknod, since there is no policy prohibition on mkfifo (and it can't be used to make special files). Perhaps we can add a footnote to policy mentioning mkfifo where the mknod prohibition is written? Policy currently isn't explicit about named pipes unless one considers them to be device files (which they sort of are and sort of aren't). I propose the following change to clarify this. I'm looking for seconds. commit 23cf3d94a253f1142fcd97d39320419b1014448d Author: Russ Allbery r...@debian.org Date: Thu Nov 12 13:26:50 2009 -0800 Clarify policy on named pipes in packages Make explicit the requirement that packages not include named pipes in addition to device files. State that named pipes must be created in postinst and removed in prerm or postrm as appropriate. Suggest in a footnote using mkfifo rather than mknod to avoid false positives from package checkers. diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml index 9fcb660..34a45d5 100644 --- a/policy.sgml +++ b/policy.sgml @@ -7256,8 +7256,8 @@ ln -fs ../sbin/sendmail debian/tmp/usr/bin/runq headingDevice files/heading p - Packages must not include device files in the package file - tree. + Packages must not include device files or named pipes in the + package file tree. /p p @@ -7282,6 +7282,18 @@ ln -fs ../sbin/sendmail debian/tmp/usr/bin/runq file/dev/cu*/file devices should be changed to use file/dev/ttyS*/file. /p + + p + Named pipes needed by the package must be created in + the prgnpostinst/prgn scriptfootnote + It's better to use prgnmkfifo/prgn rather + than prgnmknod/prgn to create named pipes so that + automated checks for packages incorrectly creating device + files with prgnmknod/prgn won't have false positives. + /footnote and removed in + the prgnprerm/prgn or prgnpostrm/prgn script as + appropriate. + /p /sect sect id=config-files -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#552690: mknod-in-maintainer-script postinst:39
On Thu, Nov 12 2009, Russ Allbery wrote: Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes: On Thu, Oct 29 2009, Simon Horman wrote: Could you suggest a policy-compliant method of creating fifos for the package? At the time that I added mknod to the maintainer script the consensus that this was the best option available. You may use mkfifo instead of mknod, since there is no policy prohibition on mkfifo (and it can't be used to make special files). Perhaps we can add a footnote to policy mentioning mkfifo where the mknod prohibition is written? Policy currently isn't explicit about named pipes unless one considers them to be device files (which they sort of are and sort of aren't). I propose the following change to clarify this. I'm looking for seconds. commit 23cf3d94a253f1142fcd97d39320419b1014448d Author: Russ Allbery r...@debian.org Date: Thu Nov 12 13:26:50 2009 -0800 Clarify policy on named pipes in packages Make explicit the requirement that packages not include named pipes in addition to device files. State that named pipes must be created in postinst and removed in prerm or postrm as appropriate. Suggest in a footnote using mkfifo rather than mknod to avoid false positives from package checkers. diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml index 9fcb660..34a45d5 100644 --- a/policy.sgml +++ b/policy.sgml @@ -7256,8 +7256,8 @@ ln -fs ../sbin/sendmail debian/tmp/usr/bin/runq headingDevice files/heading p - Packages must not include device files in the package file - tree. + Packages must not include device files or named pipes in the + package file tree. /p p @@ -7282,6 +7282,18 @@ ln -fs ../sbin/sendmail debian/tmp/usr/bin/runq file/dev/cu*/file devices should be changed to use file/dev/ttyS*/file. /p + + p + Named pipes needed by the package must be created in + the prgnpostinst/prgn scriptfootnote + It's better to use prgnmkfifo/prgn rather + than prgnmknod/prgn to create named pipes so that + automated checks for packages incorrectly creating device + files with prgnmknod/prgn won't have false positives. + /footnote and removed in + the prgnprerm/prgn or prgnpostrm/prgn script as + appropriate. + /p /sect sect id=config-files Seconded. manoj -- You can't cheat the phone company. Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C pgpTeHQNpslW9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#555977: debian-policy: Constraints on binary package control files
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.8.3.0 Severity: wishlist Lintian has several checks for the control files included in a binary package, but so far as I can tell, there is no general discussion in Policy right now about these files or any restrictions on them. This seems like something that should be discussed in Policy. The Lintian tags which are used for rejects by ftpmaster are: Tag: not-allowed-control-file Severity: serious Certainty: certain Info: The package contains a control file that is not allowed in this type of package. Some control files are only allowed in either .deb or .udeb packages and must not be included in packages of the other type. You should probably just remove the file. (This triggers on inclusion of an insinstallable or menutest control file in a non-udeb package.) Tag: control-file-has-bad-permissions Severity: serious Certainty: certain Info: The ttconfig/tt, ttpostinst/tt, ttpostrm/tt, ttpreinst/tt, and ttprerm/tt control files should use mode 0755; all other control files should use 0644. Tag: control-file-has-bad-owner Severity: serious Certainty: certain Info: All control files should be owned by root/root. In addition, Lintian also warns if a control file is empty or if it's not one of the known set of control files, which at present is: clilibs config control conffiles md5sums postinst preinst postrm prerm shlibs symbols templates triggers -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.30-2-686-bigmem (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash debian-policy depends on no packages. debian-policy recommends no packages. Versions of packages debian-policy suggests: ii doc-base 0.9.5 utilities to manage online documen -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#555979: debian-policy: Symlinks pointing beyond the root of the file system
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.8.3.0 Severity: wishlist Lintian has a tag: Tag: symlink-has-too-many-up-segments Severity: serious Certainty: certain Ref: policy 10.5 Info: The symlink references a directory beyond the root directory /. for symlinks that contain so many ../ segments that they traverse above the root of the file system. This tag is currently used by ftpmaster to reject uploads, but this behavior is not explicitly prohibited by Policy (although it violates both shoulds in 10.5). -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.30-2-686-bigmem (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash debian-policy depends on no packages. debian-policy recommends no packages. Versions of packages debian-policy suggests: ii doc-base 0.9.5 utilities to manage online documen -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#552690: mknod-in-maintainer-script postinst:39
Seconded. On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 13:29 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes: On Thu, Oct 29 2009, Simon Horman wrote: Could you suggest a policy-compliant method of creating fifos for the package? At the time that I added mknod to the maintainer script the consensus that this was the best option available. You may use mkfifo instead of mknod, since there is no policy prohibition on mkfifo (and it can't be used to make special files). Perhaps we can add a footnote to policy mentioning mkfifo where the mknod prohibition is written? Policy currently isn't explicit about named pipes unless one considers them to be device files (which they sort of are and sort of aren't). I propose the following change to clarify this. I'm looking for seconds. commit 23cf3d94a253f1142fcd97d39320419b1014448d Author: Russ Allbery r...@debian.org Date: Thu Nov 12 13:26:50 2009 -0800 Clarify policy on named pipes in packages Make explicit the requirement that packages not include named pipes in addition to device files. State that named pipes must be created in postinst and removed in prerm or postrm as appropriate. Suggest in a footnote using mkfifo rather than mknod to avoid false positives from package checkers. diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml index 9fcb660..34a45d5 100644 --- a/policy.sgml +++ b/policy.sgml @@ -7256,8 +7256,8 @@ ln -fs ../sbin/sendmail debian/tmp/usr/bin/runq headingDevice files/heading p - Packages must not include device files in the package file - tree. + Packages must not include device files or named pipes in the + package file tree. /p p @@ -7282,6 +7282,18 @@ ln -fs ../sbin/sendmail debian/tmp/usr/bin/runq file/dev/cu*/file devices should be changed to use file/dev/ttyS*/file. /p + + p + Named pipes needed by the package must be created in + the prgnpostinst/prgn scriptfootnote + It's better to use prgnmkfifo/prgn rather + than prgnmknod/prgn to create named pipes so that + automated checks for packages incorrectly creating device + files with prgnmknod/prgn won't have false positives. + /footnote and removed in + the prgnprerm/prgn or prgnpostrm/prgn script as + appropriate. + /p /sect sect id=config-files -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ andrew (AT) morphoss (DOT) com+64(272)DEBIAN Flexibility is overrated. Constraints are liberating. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#555980: debian-policy: No policy on statically linked binaries
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.8.3.0 Severity: wishlist Unless I'm missing something, and I did a text search through Policy, Policy is currently silent on the topic of statically linked binaries other than a brief mention in a footnote on convenience copies of code. I believe we should say that they're discouraged in general and are normally only appropriate for shared library maintenance and recovery tools (ldconfig, etc.) or for security tools. ftpmaster currently requires that any statically linked binaries be documented with a Lintian override. -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.30-2-686-bigmem (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash debian-policy depends on no packages. debian-policy recommends no packages. Versions of packages debian-policy suggests: ii doc-base 0.9.5 utilities to manage online documen -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#555981: debian-policy: No clear discussion of arch-independent vs. arch-dependent packages
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.8.3.0 Severity: wishlist I again may be missing something, but I don't believe there's anywhere in Policy that says the obvious things about architecture-independent packages versus architecture-dependent packages. I'm thinking of the basic definitional things like: Architecture-independent packages are packages that will function on any architecture supported by Debian. They generally should not contain any compiled binaries, since these would be specific to a particular architecture. Programs that must be compiled for each architecture must be distributed in separate architecture-dependent packages for each architecture, not as one architecture-independent package containing all the binaries. I know this is obvious stuff, but right now there's no Policy paragraph for Lintian checks like arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object to reference. -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.30-2-686-bigmem (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash debian-policy depends on no packages. debian-policy recommends no packages. Versions of packages debian-policy suggests: ii doc-base 0.9.5 utilities to manage online documen -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#552690: mknod-in-maintainer-script postinst:39
Andrew McMillan and...@morphoss.com writes: Seconded. Thanks to you and Manoj. Pushed. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#555981: debian-policy: No clear discussion of arch-independent vs. arch-dependent packages
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org (12/11/2009): Architecture-independent packages are packages that will function on any architecture supported by Debian. While I can think of plenty of Perl packages where it's about “functioning”, there are also a lot of data packages around, so I'm not sure “function” is the best term here. They generally should not contain any compiled binaries, since these would be specific to a particular architecture. There could be architecture-specific headers, paths, config files maybe, etc. Maybe prepend that with “In particular,”? Programs that must be compiled for each architecture must be distributed in separate architecture-dependent packages for each architecture, not as one architecture-independent package containing all the binaries. Heh, never thought of that. :)) Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#555982: debian-policy: RPATH in binaries and shared libraries
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.8.3.0 Severity: wishlist Lintian has the following tag: Tag: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath Severity: serious Certainty: possible Ref: http://wiki.debian.org/RpathIssue Info: The binary or shared library sets RPATH. This overrides the normal library search path, possibly interfering with local policy and causing problems for multilib, among other issues. . The only time a binary or shared library in a Debian package should set RPATH is if it is linked to private shared libraries in the same package. In that case, place those private shared libraries in tt/usr/lib/ipackage/i/tt. Libraries used by binaries in other packages should be placed in tt/lib/tt or tt/usr/lib/tt as appropriate, with a proper SONAME, in which case RPATH is unnecessary. . To fix this problem, look for link lines like: gcc test.o -o test -Wl,--rpath,/usr/local/lib or gcc test.o -o test -R/usr/local/lib and remove the tt-Wl,--rpath/tt or tt-R/tt argument. You can also use the chrpath utility to remove the RPATH. and ftpmaster requires an override for this tag to allow packages into the archive. I believe Policy is currently silent on this topic. The normative contents of that wiki page should be turned into a Policy proposal. -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.30-2-686-bigmem (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash debian-policy depends on no packages. debian-policy recommends no packages. Versions of packages debian-policy suggests: ii doc-base 0.9.5 utilities to manage online documen -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Difficulty rebuilding text files with org-mode
Manoj, when I tried to rebuild upgrading-checklist, I got the following error: % /usr/bin/emacs23 --batch -Q -l ./README-css.el -l org --visit upgrading-checklist.org --funcall org-export-as-ascii Loading vc-git... Autoloading failed to define function org-export-as-ascii Running: % /usr/bin/emacs23 --batch -Q -l ./README-css.el -l org -l org-ascii --visit upgrading-checklist.org --funcall org-export-as-ascii Loading vc-git... Saving file /home/eagle/dvl/debian/policy/upgrading-checklist.txt... Wrote /home/eagle/dvl/debian/policy/upgrading-checklist.txt ASCII export done, pushed to kill ring and clipboard instead worked. I'm not sure what's going on, since org-install.el does have an autoload for org-export-as-ascii. HTML generation worked fine. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#555977: debian-policy: Constraints on binary package control files
Le Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 04:17:33PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : In addition, Lintian also warns if a control file is empty or if it's not one of the known set of control files, which at present is: clilibs config control conffiles md5sums postinst preinst postrm prerm shlibs symbols templates triggers Hi Russ, Many of the above files are not listed in the chapter 5 of the Policy, which defines the control files. In this chapter, they are all in the Debian email header-like format. Maybe to avoid confusion either the chapter 5 could be clarified, or the above group of files could be named differently ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Processed: Re: Bug#469154: chapter 4.10: PTS summary description needs update
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: tags 469154 + patch Bug #469154 [developers-reference] chapter 4.10: PTS summary description needs update Added tag(s) patch. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Processed: Re: Bug#540231: Override changes
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: tags 540231 + patch Bug #540231 [developers-reference] [jo...@ganneff.de: Override changes] Added tag(s) patch. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#554054: , #554077: s/ftp-master.debian.org/ftp.upload.debian.org/ etc.
tags 554054 + patch
tags 554077 + patch
thanks
Here are some proposed patches to clarify the status of upload queues, both
also available in
http://git.debian.org/?p=users/smcv/developers-reference.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/misc.
The second depends on the first.
Regards,
S
From: Simon McVittie s...@debian.org
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:23:34 + (+)
Subject: #554054: talk about ftp.upload.debian.org, not ftp-master, for uploads
X-Git-Url:
http://git.debian.org/?p=users%2Fsmcv%2Fdevelopers-reference.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=0f0ef54d6708b78f2f8d9c2703490d9f25a04f16
#554054: talk about ftp.upload.debian.org, not ftp-master, for uploads
---
diff --git a/common.ent b/common.ent
index 68da1fb..633ff1e 100644
--- a/common.ent
+++ b/common.ent
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
!ENTITY bugs-host bugs.debian.org
!ENTITY pts-host packages.qa.debian.org
!ENTITY ftp-master-host ftp-master.debian.org
+!ENTITY ftp-upload-host ftp.upload.debian.org
!ENTITY ftp-master-mirror merkel.debian.org
!ENTITY upload-queue /pub/UploadQueue/
diff --git a/pkgs.dbk b/pkgs.dbk
index d628f66..6a6822c 100644
--- a/pkgs.dbk
+++ b/pkgs.dbk
@@ -379,12 +379,12 @@ section/link for details.
section id=upload
titleUploading a package/title
section id=upload-ftp-master
-titleUploading to literalftp-master/literal/title
+titleUploading to literalftp-upload-host;/literal/title
para
To upload a package, you should upload the files (including the signed changes
-and dsc-file) with anonymous ftp to literalftp-master-host;/literal in
+and dsc-file) with anonymous ftp to literalftp-upload-host;/literal in
the directory ulink
-url=ftp://ftp-master-host;upload-queue;;upload-queue;/ulink.
+url=ftp://ftp-upload-host;upload-queue;;upload-queue;/ulink.
To get the files processed there, they need to be signed with a key in the
Debian Developers keyring or the Debian Maintainers keyring
(see ulink url=url-wiki-dm;/ulink).
@@ -422,9 +422,9 @@ the deferred uploads queue/ulink.
When the specified waiting time is over, the package is moved into
the regular incoming directory for processing.
This is done through automatic uploading to
-literalftp-master-host;/literal in upload-directory
+literalftp-upload-host;/literal in upload-directory
literalDELAYED/[012345678]-day/literal. 0-day is uploaded
-multiple times per day to literalftp-master-host;/literal.
+multiple times per day to literalftp-upload-host;/literal.
/para
para
With dput, you can use the literal--delayed
replaceableDELAY/replaceable/literal
diff --git a/resources.dbk b/resources.dbk
index 6ecfbd9..50146a4 100644
--- a/resources.dbk
+++ b/resources.dbk
@@ -275,7 +275,8 @@ reduce unnecessary duplication of effort or wasted
processing time.
titleThe ftp-master server/title
para
The literalftp-master-host;/literal server holds the canonical copy of
-the Debian archive. Generally, package uploads go to this server; see
+the Debian archive. Generally, package uploads go to ftp-upload-host;,
+which at the time of writing is an alias for ftp-master-host;; see
xref linkend=upload/.
/para
para
@@ -939,7 +940,7 @@ snippet to your configuration file:
programlisting
$delay = ($ENV{DELAY} || 7);
$cfg{'delayed'} = {
- fqdn = ftp-master-host;,
+ fqdn = ftp-upload-host;,
login = yourdebianlogin,
incoming = /org/ftp-debian-org;/incoming/DELAYED/$delay-day/,
dinstall_runs = 1,
From: Simon McVittie s...@debian.org
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:36:46 + (+)
Subject: #554077: don't mention dead upload queues, but do mention
ftp.eu.upload and ssh.upload
X-Git-Url:
http://git.debian.org/?p=users%2Fsmcv%2Fdevelopers-reference.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=17c7315c933141416cd82ef6d5843753e3bb48ff
#554077: don't mention dead upload queues, but do mention ftp.eu.upload and
ssh.upload
---
diff --git a/pkgs.dbk b/pkgs.dbk
index f33f18f..93782c2 100644
--- a/pkgs.dbk
+++ b/pkgs.dbk
@@ -447,19 +447,17 @@ see section xref linkend=bug-security/ .
section id=s5.6.5
titleOther upload queues/title
para
-The scp queues on literalftp-master-host;/literal, and literal
-security.debian.org/literal are mostly unusable due to the login restrictions
-on those hosts.
+ There is an alternative upload queue in Europe, accessed via the ulink
+url=ftp://ftp.eu.upload.debian.orgupload-queue;;upload-queue;/ulink
+ directory on literalftp.eu.upload.debian.org/literal. It operates in
+ the same way as literalftp-upload-host;/literal, but should be faster
+ for European developers.
/para
para
-The anonymous queues on ftp.uni-erlangen.de and ftp.uk.debian.org are currently
-down. Work is underway to resurrect them.
-/para
-para
-The queues on master.debian.org, samosa.debian.org, master.debian.or.jp, and
-ftp.chiark.greenend.org.uk are down permanently, and will not be resurrected.
-The queue in Japan will be replaced with a new queue on hp.debian.or.jp some
-day.
+ Packages can also be uploaded via ssh to
+ literalssh.upload.debian.org/literal; place
Bug#555977: debian-policy: Constraints on binary package control files
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 04:17:33PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Lintian has several checks for the control files included in a binary package, but so far as I can tell, there is no general discussion in Policy right now about these files or any restrictions on them. This seems like something that should be discussed in Policy. The Lintian tags which are used for rejects by ftpmaster are: Tag: not-allowed-control-file Severity: serious Certainty: certain Info: The package contains a control file that is not allowed in this type of package. Some control files are only allowed in either .deb or .udeb packages and must not be included in packages of the other type. You should probably just remove the file. (This triggers on inclusion of an insinstallable or menutest control file in a non-udeb package.) Tag: control-file-has-bad-permissions Severity: serious Certainty: certain Info: The ttconfig/tt, ttpostinst/tt, ttpostrm/tt, ttpreinst/tt, and ttprerm/tt control files should use mode 0755; all other control files should use 0644. Tag: control-file-has-bad-owner Severity: serious Certainty: certain Info: All control files should be owned by root/root. I agree that these should be covered by policy, and will be happy to second language that spells this out. In addition, Lintian also warns if a control file is empty or if it's not one of the known set of control files, which at present is: clilibs config control conffiles md5sums postinst preinst postrm prerm shlibs symbols templates triggers I think it's appropriate for lintian to warn about unknown files since this may point to a misspelling or other error, but I don't think there's anything about this that belongs in Policy except where individual control files will have their syntax and/or usage defined there. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#555977: debian-policy: Constraints on binary package control files
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes: Le Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 04:17:33PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : In addition, Lintian also warns if a control file is empty or if it's not one of the known set of control files, which at present is: clilibs config control conffiles md5sums postinst preinst postrm prerm shlibs symbols templates triggers Many of the above files are not listed in the chapter 5 of the Policy, which defines the control files. In this chapter, they are all in the Debian email header-like format. Maybe to avoid confusion either the chapter 5 could be clarified, or the above group of files could be named differently ? Yes, there's an unfortunate reuse of the same term for two different purposes: files in the Debian control file format, and files in the control.tar.gz portion of a binary package. I'm not sure what we'll be able to do about this, since both uses of the term are well-established, but we should probably try -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#469154: chapter 4.10: PTS summary description needs update
tags 469154 + patch thanks On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 at 17:15:09 +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: * Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org [2008-03-11 14:59:09 CET]: On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: summary Regular summary emails about the package's status. Currently, only progression in testing is sent. It does additional to the testing migration informations contain the newly DEHS new upstream version available mails. And also it will receive notice of removals and orphaning How about this for a patch? (For my own convenience I'm collecting patches into a git-svn branch; feel free to take these patches from that repository, or ignore it, as you see fit.) From: Simon McVittie s...@debian.org Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:43:12 + (+) Subject: #469154: update PTS summary description X-Git-Url: http://git.debian.org/?p=users%2Fsmcv%2Fdevelopers-reference.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=67b88cdee3587af51d6958cdcf1a026bb5a4da94 #469154: update PTS summary description --- diff --git a/resources.dbk b/resources.dbk index 35f31d5..8547acc 100644 --- a/resources.dbk +++ b/resources.dbk @@ -1075,8 +1075,11 @@ aliases. termliteralsummary/literal/term listitem para -Regular summary emails about the package's status. Currently, only progression -in literaltesting/literal is sent. +Regular summary emails about the package's status, including progression +into literaltesting/literal, +ulink url=http://dehs.alioth.debian.org/;DEHS/ulink notifications of +new upstream versions, and a notification if the package is removed or +orphaned. /para /listitem /varlistentry signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#555685: typo transferred instead of transfered
tags 555685 + patch severity 555685 minor thanks While I'm doing trivial patches anyway... (For my own convenience I'm collecting patches into a git-svn branch; feel free to take these patches from that repository, or ignore it, as you see fit.) From: Simon McVittie s...@debian.org Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:24:09 + (+) Subject: #555685: fix typo 'transfered' X-Git-Url: http://git.debian.org/?p=users%2Fsmcv%2Fdevelopers-reference.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=49739993b46a3d49a014bca54af12ab55035c1fc #555685: fix typo 'transfered' --- diff --git a/pkgs.dbk b/pkgs.dbk index 6a6822c..f33f18f 100644 --- a/pkgs.dbk +++ b/pkgs.dbk @@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ time. titleSpecial case: uploads to the literalstable/literal and literaloldstable/literal distributions/title para -Uploading to literalstable/literal means that the package will transfered +Uploading to literalstable/literal means that the package will transferred to the literalproposed-updates-new/literal queue for review by the stable release managers, and if approved will be installed in filenamestable-proposed-updates/filename directory of the Debian archive. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#540231: Override changes
tags 540231 + patch thanks How about this for a patch? (For my own convenience I'm collecting patches into a git-svn branch; feel free to take these patches from that repository, or ignore it, as you see fit.) From: Simon McVittie s...@debian.org Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:46:48 + (+) Subject: #540231: update guideline for override changes, the ftpmasters now prefer bug reports X-Git-Url: http://git.debian.org/?p=users%2Fsmcv%2Fdevelopers-reference.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=b86613d3c9cb57ba6ed255a7664a92cb42e9dafe #540231: update guideline for override changes, the ftpmasters now prefer bug reports --- diff --git a/pkgs.dbk b/pkgs.dbk index 93782c2..86f3a90 100644 --- a/pkgs.dbk +++ b/pkgs.dbk @@ -515,10 +515,13 @@ file/literal. para To alter the actual section that a package is put in, you need to first make sure that the filenamedebian/control/filename file in your package is -accurate. Next, send an email email-override; or submit a +accurate. Next, submit a bug against systemitem role=packageftp.debian.org/systemitem requesting that the section or priority for your package be changed from the old section -or priority to the new one. Be sure to explain your reasoning. +or priority to the new one. Use a Subject like +literaloverride: PACKAGE1:section/priority, [...], + PACKAGEX:section/priority/literal, and include the justification for the +change in the body of the bug report. /para para For more information about literaloverride files/literal, see signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#556015: debian-policy: Clarify requirements for copyright file
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.8.3.0 Severity: wishlist The requirements for the copyright file in binary and source packages has been the source of a lot of confusion and a lot of bug reports against Lintian. This is an attempt to state the requirements more specifically and more completely. This also adds a footnote explaining the perl and perl-base exception. This was discussed in depth several times and run past ftpmaster and left as a special exception after a couple of unsuccessful attempts to find a robust transition plan. This update does not permit the copyright file to be a symlink without symlinking the entire /usr/share/doc directory, as is allowed in Ubuntu. I think that issue is separate and should be discussed separately. -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.30-2-686-bigmem (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash debian-policy depends on no packages. debian-policy recommends no packages. Versions of packages debian-policy suggests: ii doc-base 0.9.5 utilities to manage online documen -- no debconf information commit 9ab4fd41db8b301b340600cd691fff4ee59d5744 Author: Russ Allbery r...@debian.org Date: Thu Nov 12 20:39:41 2009 -0800 Clarify handling of the copyright file Be much more explicit about the alternatives for the copyright file of a binary package: either /usr/share/doc/package/copyright or a /usr/share/doc/package symlink to another package. Add explicit requirements for using the symlink approach. Require that, if a symlink is used, there be a direct dependency on the package containing the copyright file. Require source packages to have a debian/copyright file giving the copyright and distribution license for the entire source package, even if there are multiple copyright files in the source package so that different binary packages can have their own. Add a footnote explaining that the perl and perl-base packages are a special exception due to complex transition issues with the essential perl-base package. diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml index 34a45d5..22fb40d 100644 --- a/policy.sgml +++ b/policy.sgml @@ -8958,7 +8958,7 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY /p /sect - sect + sect id=addl-docs headingAdditional documentation/heading p @@ -9060,39 +9060,82 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY headingCopyright information/heading p - Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its + Every package must be either include a verbatim copy of its copyright and distribution license in the file - file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var/copyright/file. This - file must neither be compressed nor be a symbolic link. + file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var/copyright/file or must + include a symlink + named file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var/file that points + to the file/usr/share/doc/file directory of another package + that includes the copyright file.footnote + The packageperl-base/package and packageperl/package + packages do not meet these requirements. + packageperl-base/package contains the copyright file for + both packages in the location appropriate for + the packageperl/package, and packageperl/package does + not include either a symlink or a copyright file. Fixing this + would be complex and result in potentially fragile upgrades, + in part because packageperl-base/package is essential. + This is therefore permitted as a special exception. Other + packages do not have the added complexity of being essential + and do not get the same exception. + /footnote + The second option may only be used if all of the following + requirements are met: + enumlist + item + All the requirements for using a symlink instead of a + directory as file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var/file + described in ref id=addl-docs must be met. This means + both packages must come from the same source package and the + package must depend on the package containing its copyright + and distribution license. + /item + + item + There must be a direct dependency on the package containing + the copyright and distribution license. An indirect + dependency via a third package is not sufficient. + /item + + item + The file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var/copyright/file + file contained in the other package must contain the + copyright and distribution license for both packages. + /item + + item + The copyright file contained in the other package must meet + all of the requirements listed below. + /item + /enumlist /p p - In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream -
Bug#556015: debian-policy: Clarify requirements for copyright file
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes: The requirements for the copyright file in binary and source packages has been the source of a lot of confusion and a lot of bug reports against Lintian. This is an attempt to state the requirements more specifically and more completely. This also adds a footnote explaining the perl and perl-base exception. This was discussed in depth several times and run past ftpmaster and left as a special exception after a couple of unsuccessful attempts to find a robust transition plan. I should mention that this proposal also removes the requirement that the original authors of the package and the Debian maintainers involved in its creation be documented in the copyright file. The Debian changelog file should be sufficient for this purpose. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#556015: debian-policy: Clarify requirements for copyright file
Le Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 08:46:21PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : + If a source package produces + binary packages with separate copyright files (if, for instance, + different binary packages produced from one source package have + substantially different distribution licenses), it may include + multiple copyright files for installation into the different + binary packages, but filedebian/copyright/file in the source + package must still contain the copyright and distribution + license for the entirety of the source package. Hi all, I wonder if this is not an additional requirement to the current practice. Some of the constraints on debian/copyright are justified by the fact that it facilitates NEW processing. However, I have never read an objection on debian-devel or debian-devel-announce about having the debian/copyright file split later. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#556015: debian-policy: Clarify requirements for copyright file
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes: Le Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 08:46:21PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : + If a source package produces + binary packages with separate copyright files (if, for instance, + different binary packages produced from one source package have + substantially different distribution licenses), it may include + multiple copyright files for installation into the different + binary packages, but filedebian/copyright/file in the source + package must still contain the copyright and distribution + license for the entirety of the source package. I wonder if this is not an additional requirement to the current practice. It's an additional requirement over the current Policy statement, but according to previous statements by ftpmaster, it reflects what's currently being enforced during NEW processing. Also, it just makes sense; it's not possible for ftpmaster to easily review the package unless there's one file that covers the source package, since Debian is going to distribute that source package. Some of the constraints on debian/copyright are justified by the fact that it facilitates NEW processing. However, I have never read an objection on debian-devel or debian-devel-announce about having the debian/copyright file split later. http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html says: Your debian/copyright file must have at least the minimum needed stuff. A good overview of what you need is behind this mail. and separate e-mail messages from ftp team members in other threads have made it clear that they mean specifically debian/copyright. If you want to craft separate copyright files for separate binary packages, I don't think anyone has any objections, but I believe the ftp team still expects the source package license and copyright notices to be in the normal location. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#556015: debian-policy: Clarify requirements for copyright file
Le Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:22:37PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes: Le Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 08:46:21PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : +If a source package produces +binary packages with separate copyright files (if, for instance, +different binary packages produced from one source package have +substantially different distribution licenses), it may include +multiple copyright files for installation into the different +binary packages, but filedebian/copyright/file in the source +package must still contain the copyright and distribution +license for the entirety of the source package. I wonder if this is not an additional requirement to the current practice. It's an additional requirement over the current Policy statement, but according to previous statements by ftpmaster, it reflects what's currently being enforced during NEW processing. Also, it just makes sense; it's not possible for ftpmaster to easily review the package unless there's one file that covers the source package, since Debian is going to distribute that source package. That is my point: it is a requirement for NEW processing. The FTP team does not check the copyright files of the packages afterwards. It is a bit similar to the Section and Priority fields of the debian/control files, that must be good at the time of NEW upload, and are almost useless after. This said, I understand that my point of view is minoritary, so feel free to go ahead. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#556015: debian-policy: Clarify requirements for copyright file
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes: Le Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:22:37PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : It's an additional requirement over the current Policy statement, but according to previous statements by ftpmaster, it reflects what's currently being enforced during NEW processing. Sorry, this isn't completely correct. It's a *relaxation* of the existing requirement in one significant sense, and a strengthening in a different sense. Policy currently says: A copy of the file which will be installed in /usr/share/doc/package/copyright should be in debian/copyright in the source package. So in other words, any package that does anything other than install the debian/copyright file from the source package into the appropriate place in the binary package is buggy according to Policy currently. Now, I know that some package maintainers like to provide separate copyright files for different binary packages if, say, one is under the GPL and another is under the BSD license. Currently, Policy says that they should not do that. I'm proposing relaxing that requirement and allowing them to do so, provided that debian/copyright still documents the copyright and license information for the source package as a whole. I'm also proposing changing the requirement for debian/copyright from a should to a must. I believe that reflects existing practice. A package that has no debian/copyright file is not going to make it into the archive now. Also, it just makes sense; it's not possible for ftpmaster to easily review the package unless there's one file that covers the source package, since Debian is going to distribute that source package. That is my point: it is a requirement for NEW processing. The FTP team does not check the copyright files of the packages afterwards. Ah, I understand what you mean, now. But yes, they do. Whenever a new binary package is introduced, for example. Besides, I'm not sure this is relevant. Surely one wouldn't create a debian/copyright file for NEW and then remove it afterwards so that no one else can reproduce the NEW copyright check if they wish? To me, that's just obviously wrong, obviously a bad thing to do on many different fronts. Hm, in investigating this, I just noticed that Policy 4.5 doesn't make any sense. It says that any source package must be accompanied by its copyright file in /usr/share/doc/package/copyright. I'll produce a new version of the patch that corrects that as well. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 556015 ...
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to 'package':'debian-policy' usertags 556015 normative Bug#556015: debian-policy: Clarify requirements for copyright file There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: normative. tags 556015 patch Bug #556015 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Clarify requirements for copyright file Added tag(s) patch. End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#556015: debian-policy: Clarify requirements for copyright file
Here is an updated version of the patch that corrects or clarifies a few other places in Policy. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ commit 10a36221dbdef0417c8fe5dd9153843fc160acd7 Author: Russ Allbery r...@debian.org Date: Thu Nov 12 20:39:41 2009 -0800 Clarify handling of the copyright file Be much more explicit about the alternatives for the copyright file of a binary package: either /usr/share/doc/package/copyright or a /usr/share/doc/package symlink to another package. Add explicit requirements for using the symlink approach. Require that, if a symlink is used, there be a direct dependency on the package containing the copyright file. Require source packages to have a debian/copyright file giving the copyright and distribution license for the entire source package, even if there are multiple copyright files in the source package so that different binary packages can have their own. Modify the section on debian/copyright to talk about source packages and debian/copyright instead of the binary file location. Remove the requirement that the copyright file include the names of the Debian packager and package maintainers. The Debian changelog file covers that. Add a footnote explaining that the perl and perl-base packages are a special exception due to complex transition issues with the essential perl-base package. Refer separately to binary and source packages in the Copyright considerations section. diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml index 34a45d5..51b9adb 100644 --- a/policy.sgml +++ b/policy.sgml @@ -569,10 +569,14 @@ headingCopyright considerations/heading p - Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of - its copyright and distribution license in the file - file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var/copyright/file - (see ref id=copyrightfile for further details). + Every binary package must include a verbatim copy of its + copyright and distribution license in the file + file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var/copyright/file or + symlink that directory to a package that does (see + ref id=copyrightfile for further details). Every + source package must include a verbatim copy of its copyright and + distribution license in the file filedebian/copyright/file + (see ref id=dpkgcopyright). /p p @@ -1638,12 +1642,11 @@ sect id=dpkgcopyright headingCopyright: filedebian/copyright/file/heading p - Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of + Every source package must include a verbatim copy of its copyright and distribution license in the file - file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var/copyright/file - (see ref id=copyrightfile for further details). Also see - ref id=pkgcopyright for further considerations related - to copyrights for packages. + filedebian/copyright/file (see ref id=copyrightfile for + further details). Also see ref id=pkgcopyright for further + considerations related to copyrights for packages. /p /sect sect @@ -8958,7 +8961,7 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY /p /sect - sect + sect id=addl-docs headingAdditional documentation/heading p @@ -9060,39 +9063,82 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY headingCopyright information/heading p - Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its - copyright and distribution license in the file - file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var/copyright/file. This - file must neither be compressed nor be a symbolic link. + Every package either include a verbatim copy of its copyright + and distribution license in the file + file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var/copyright/file or must + include a symlink + named file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var/file that points + to the file/usr/share/doc/file directory of another package + that includes the copyright file.footnote + The packageperl-base/package and packageperl/package + packages do not meet these requirements. + packageperl-base/package contains the copyright file for + both packages in the location appropriate for + the packageperl/package, and packageperl/package does + not include either a symlink or a copyright file. Fixing this + would be complex and result in potentially fragile upgrades, + in part because packageperl-base/package is essential. + This is therefore permitted as a special exception. Other + packages do not have the added complexity of being essential + and do not get the same exception. + /footnote + The second option may only be used if all of the following + requirements are met: + enumlist + item + All the requirements for using a symlink instead of a + directory as file/usr/share/doc/varpackage/var/file + described in ref id=addl-docs must be met. This means + both packages must come from the same
