Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Here is the complete text [of the current Policy §2.2.1]:
The main archive area comprises the Debian distribution. Only the
packages in this area are considered part of the distribution.
None of the packages in the main archive area require
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Michael Gilbert writes:
Opinions are malleable (wrong and right are all a matter of
perspective). This is something sufficiently nuanced that I think its
worth sufficient pondering to really get it right. If you haven't spent
much time
Michael Gilbert michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think you're in the rough of rough consensus.
It takes some moxie to put a dent into the status quo. If that's rough,
so be it. I try my best to be kind and constructive though.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Michael Gilbert writes:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think you're in the rough of rough consensus.
It takes some moxie to put a dent into the status quo. If that's rough,
so be it. I try my best to be kind and
Michael Gilbert michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com writes:
The important consequence of a potential policy change/clarification
here, is that pushing these oddballs out of main solves all of the
problems: security authenticity/integrity, non-freeness, brokenness,
trustworthiness, etc. They're all
Le Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 01:21:51AM -0400, Michael Gilbert a écrit :
Think about it this way. Say the remote firmware files that getweb
currently fetches were instead put in a package called
foo2zjs-nonfree. That package would (of course) have to be located in
non-free, and any packages
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 06:19:47PM -0400, David Prévot wrote:
Le 12/03/2012 13:44, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 01:56:17AM +0100, Carsten Hey wrote:
[…] how a possible mechanism to let users choose between always prefer
free packages and follow the maintainer's
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
No, that's not correct. If a package is already installed but a newever
version is available, then this will be upgraded if the priority is 1.
It just won't be selected for installation automatically.
This is how experimental works: packages in
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is the bug concerning the wording in current Policy 2.2.1:
In addition, the packages in main
* must not require a package outside of main for compilation or
execution (thus, the package must not declare a Depends,
Michael Gilbert michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com writes:
This is a bit off-topic for the bug report, but while you're thinking
about rewording this section, it may be prescient to consider
non-explicit dependencies.
For example, the getweb script in foo2jzs fetches non-free firmware
files, yet
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Michael Gilbert michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com writes:
This is a bit off-topic for the bug report, but while you're thinking
about rewording this section, it may be prescient to consider
non-explicit dependencies.
For
Michael Gilbert michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com writes:
I understand this section very well, and even with that lead-in wording,
I contend that sufficient ambiguity remains that additional clarity is
needed. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been so difficult to deal with bug
#449497, which
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Michael Gilbert writes:
I understand this section very well, and even with that lead-in wording,
I contend that sufficient ambiguity remains that additional clarity is
needed. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been so difficult to deal with bug
Michael Gilbert michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com writes:
Opinions are malleable (wrong and right are all a matter of
perspective). This is something sufficiently nuanced that I think its
worth sufficient pondering to really get it right. If you haven't spent
much time pondering those nuances,
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 01:56:17AM +0100, Carsten Hey wrote:
This reads like you ask if main | non-free should be allowed. In my
opinion, the question should rather be if it must be main | non-free
or if both, main | non-free and non-free | main, should be allowed
and how a possible mechanism
Le 12/03/2012 13:44, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 01:56:17AM +0100, Carsten Hey wrote:
[…] how a possible mechanism to let users choose between always prefer
free packages and follow the maintainer's recommendation, even it
a non-free package is preferred could look like.
* Russ Allbery [2012-01-05 09:25 -0800]:
This is the bug concerning the wording in current Policy 2.2.1:
In addition, the packages in main
* must not require a package outside of main for compilation or
execution (thus, the package must not declare a Depends,
This is the bug concerning the wording in current Policy 2.2.1:
In addition, the packages in main
* must not require a package outside of main for compilation or
execution (thus, the package must not declare a Depends,
Recommends, or Build-Depends relationship on a
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 09:43:34AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:49:18AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
Where does policy define the concept of 'non-default alternative' for
dependencies ?
This is implied by 7.5:
If you want to specify which of a set of
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes:
Where does policy define the concept of 'non-default alternative' for
dependencies ?
Good point. I think this should be more explicit, not just for this but
because it's a common topic elsewhere (such as with the default MTA) and
is
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:49:18AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:45:49AM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
On Monday 19 July 2010 11:26:38 Russ Allbery wrote:
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 0b3c1a1..06c1fdc 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:26:38AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
This particular wording allows for the non-free package to be first in
the list of alternatives, which I think is clearly incorrect. The
intent AIUI is to avoid installation of a package
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:45:49AM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
On Monday 19 July 2010 11:26:38 Russ Allbery wrote:
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 0b3c1a1..06c1fdc 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -476,9 +476,12 @@
item
must not
On Thursday 22 July 2010 04:49:18 Bill Allombert wrote:
For my part I would prefer to keep the current policy and use Provides for
non-free software.
I see two problems with that, and I actually object to that idea:
a) Provides means, in this case the non-free package, has a compatible
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes:
For my part I would prefer to keep the current policy and use Provides
for non-free software.
I think this would be worse from the perspective of not accidentally
getting non-free software. Isn't the package installed by dependency
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:26:38AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 0b3c1a1..06c1fdc 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -476,9 +476,12 @@
item
must not require a package outside of emmain/em
for
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes:
Does that allow to add dependencies on packages that exist only in
non-Debian repositories as 'non-default alternative' ?
I hope so; it's common practice for packages that require out-of-tree
kernel modules, for instance.
--
Russ
On Monday 19 July 2010 11:26:38 Russ Allbery wrote:
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 0b3c1a1..06c1fdc 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -476,9 +476,12 @@
item
must not require a package outside of emmain/em
for compilation
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
This particular wording allows for the non-free package to be first in
the list of alternatives, which I think is clearly incorrect. The
intent AIUI is to avoid installation of a package in main ever causing a
non-free package to be pulled in
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:23:02AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 3e99099..9fe7158 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -476,9 +476,11 @@
item
must not require a package outside of emmain/em
for
Hi Bill,
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 02:15:19PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
I disagree that adding an explicit allowance for alternative is not a
normative change.
The old wording (the package must not declare a Depends, Recommends, or
Build-Depends relationship on a non-main package) is
Dear all,
After reading the answer of Russ in message #34, that because of virtual
packages the dependancy graph is not closed anyway, and (in answer to Bill's
comments message #17) considering that non-free packages are anyway advertised
in the main section through Suggests dependancies, I
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:31:57AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Raphael Geissert geiss...@debian.org writes:
I see a couple of issues with the current section 2.2.1 The main
archive area:
a) It does not list neither Pre-Depends nor Build-depends-indep.
b) It does not take into
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:31:57AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm committing the following change for the next release which differs
slightly from Raphael's in that it uses better markup for the field
names (fixing an existing minor
Le Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:23:02AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 3e99099..9fe7158 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -476,9 +476,11 @@
item
must not require a package outside of emmain/em
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
I also have mixed feelings about aligning Policy on current practices:
on systems where the contrib and non-free archives are not enabled, this
brings unavailable packages in the part of the dependancy graph that is
supposed to be closed in stable
Raphael Geissert geiss...@debian.org writes:
I see a couple of issues with the current section 2.2.1 The main
archive area:
a) It does not list neither Pre-Depends nor Build-depends-indep.
b) It does not take into consideration ORed dependencies.
Point a) can be fixed by listing those two
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.4
Tags: patch
Hi,
I see a couple of issues with the current section 2.2.1 The main archive
area:
a) It does not list neither Pre-Depends nor Build-depends-indep.
b) It does not take into consideration ORed dependencies.
Point a) can be fixed by listing
38 matches
Mail list logo
