Le Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 09:52:49AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs a écrit :
Charles Plessy:
Later, I might propose on debian-devel and debian-dpkg to forbid empty
fields
in the whole specification (which means, since we are not using empty
fields,
to guarantee that valid files do not and
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:07:32AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 07:14:07PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:23:17AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
Control: tags -1 + patch
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 11:19:15AM +0900, Charles Plessy
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:23:17AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
Control: tags -1 + patch
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 11:19:15AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
How about the attached patch, that adds Its value must not be empty.
after The field ends at the end of the line or at the end of the
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 08:37:43PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
Hi,
Bill Allombert ballo...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:23:17AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 11:19:15AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
How about the attached patch, that adds
Hi,
Bill Allombert ballo...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:23:17AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 11:19:15AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
How about the attached patch, that adds Its value must not be empty.
after The field ends at the end of the line
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 07:14:07PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:23:17AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
Control: tags -1 + patch
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 11:19:15AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
How about the attached patch, that adds Its value must not be
Hi,
Charles Plessy:
Later, I might propose on debian-devel and debian-dpkg to forbid empty fields
in the whole specification (which means, since we are not using empty fields,
to guarantee that valid files do not and will not contain empty fields).
(For the avoidance of doubt, by empty I
Le Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 12:04:05AM +0100, Bill Allombert a écrit :
Thus I would like to restrict this bug to what is agreed, i.e. binary
package control files. This also side-step nicely the definition of empty.
Hi Bill and everybody,
if we all agree that empty fields are not allowed in
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 08:58:44AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Hi Henrique and Bill,
first, on the original purpose of this bug, it is to document that empty
fields
in binary package control files are not supported and can crash tools such as
apt. There, empty meant that the semicolon at
From: Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 11:16:50 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] Disallow empty fields in control files, as apt and dak
reject them already.
Closes: 666726
---
policy.sgml |8
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 08:15:03AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:56:15AM +0100, Bill Allombert a écrit :
What about automatically generated control files and substvar ?
e.g.
Depends: ${misc:Depends}
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 01:46:10PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Bill Allombert wrote:
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 6eac491..66de529 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -2556,13 +2556,15 @@ endif
example compact=compact
Le Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 08:15:03AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a écrit :
Empty fields in debian/control must be valid in *source* packages. It is a
widely used feature of the dpkg-dev suite, and it has been around for a very
very long time AFAIK.
Hi Henrique,
do you have examples of
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Bill Allombert wrote:
Anyway, this is a second try.
Cheers,
commit d450ce8f978bad0f3927ea055698b789055dfa3a
Author: Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr
Date: Sun Nov 23 16:16:21 2014 +0100
Document that empty field values are only allowed in
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 08:15:03AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a écrit
:
Empty fields in debian/control must be valid in *source* packages. It is a
widely used feature of the dpkg-dev suite, and it has been around for a very
very long
Le Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 03:08:47PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a écrit :
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
do you have examples of packages having empty fields in source package
control
files ? I have not found any. (In the sense that a field that only
contains
a
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 03:08:47PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a écrit
:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
do you have examples of packages having empty fields in source package
control
files ? I have not found any.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:15:45AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 03:08:47PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a écrit
:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
do you have examples of packages having empty fields in source package
control
files ? I
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:15:45AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 03:08:47PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a
écrit :
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
do you have examples of packages having empty fields in
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org, 2014-11-23, 18:49:
This bug is mostly to document a check in dak. Are you suggesting the
check is looking at the debian/control file and reject source packages
with empty fields?
That would be broken beyond belief! debian/control might not even
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Jakub Wilk wrote:
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org, 2014-11-23, 18:49:
This bug is mostly to document a check in dak. Are you
suggesting the check is looking at the debian/control file and
reject source packages with empty fields?
That would be broken
Le Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 04:14:14PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a écrit :
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
Then they are not empty: there is a big difference between Depends: and
Depends: ${foo}. I think that it would be very confusing if we would
refer
them as empty.
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:56:15AM +0100, Bill Allombert a écrit :
What about automatically generated control files and substvar ?
e.g.
Depends: ${misc:Depends}
where ${misc:Depends} resolve to the empty string ?
Does dpkg-gencontrol take
On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:59:45PM +0200, Andreas Noteng wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Severity: minor
The policy does not clearly state if empty control fields in debian/control
are
allowed or not. dpkg accepts te use of empty fields, apt does not.
IMHO empty control fields are bad
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:05:05AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:23:17AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
Control: tags -1 + patch
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 11:19:15AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
How about the attached patch, that adds Its value must not be
Le Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:56:15AM +0100, Bill Allombert a écrit :
What about automatically generated control files and substvar ?
e.g.
Depends: ${misc:Depends}
where ${misc:Depends} resolve to the empty string ?
Does dpkg-gencontrol take care of that ? In that case we should not lead
Control: tags -1 + patch
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 11:19:15AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
How about the attached patch, that adds Its value must not be empty.
after The field ends at the end of the line or at the end of the last
continuation line.
Seconded.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Le Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:23:17AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
Control: tags -1 + patch
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 11:19:15AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
How about the attached patch, that adds Its value must not be empty.
after The field ends at the end of the line or at the end of
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
usertags 666726 normative proposal
thanks
Le Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:10:35PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit :
I agree this could be clarified in policy. In pratice we already
disallow empty package relations (besides apt choking on them there is
also
Hi,
I agree this could be clarified in policy. In pratice we already
disallow empty package relations (besides apt choking on them there is
also an explicit check in dak for this).
Ansgar
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Package: debian-policy
Severity: minor
The policy does not clearly state if empty control fields in debian/control are
allowed or not. dpkg accepts te use of empty fields, apt does not.
IMHO empty control fields are bad practice, and should explicitly not be
allowed.
This bug is of relevance to
31 matches
Mail list logo
