Processing control commands:
> severity -1 serious
Bug #888549 [chrome-gnome-shell] chrome-gnome-shell: Please don't use /etc/opt,
it's not FHS-compliant
Severity set to 'serious' from 'important'
> notfound -1 9-2
Bug #888549 [chrome-gnome-shell] chrome-gnome-shell: Please don't use /etc/opt,
Control: severity -1 important
I temporarily reverted this change so that we could get the new
chrome-gnome-shell in to testing. Therefore, I also need to
temporarily make this bug not RC for it to migrate this week.
Thanks,
Jeremy Bicha
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:35:50PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 08:59:39PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > a.) using /opt/etc and shipping files there is fine today and piuparts
> > should not complain here
> Could you briefly explain in which way the most recent FHS
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 05:15:48PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 4:40 PM Santiago Vila wrote:
> > What I said is that no sane package in Debian/main should need to put
> > files directly in /etc/opt. That's an oddity, a very unorthodox thing,
> > it would be like a Debian
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Jeremy Bicha wrote:
>> chrome-gnome-shell (in this case) is an addon for the Google Chrome web
>> browser. Since Chrome installs to /opt/ (which is encouraged by FHS),
>> /etc/opt/ is the only standards-compliant location for
>> chrome-gnome-shell to ship the
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 at 14:57:47 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> > There is no reason this functionality cannot be offered in Debian. We
> > got complaints when we supported other browsers but not Google Chrome.
>
> Since Google Chrome is not part of Debian, shouldn't this
>
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 6:18 PM Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Then I'm confused. Why are browsers in main unable to support a
> location other than /etc/opt for this?
Because the app in /opt/ is not allowed by the FHS to store its
configuration anywhere other /etc/opt/ .
> Could there be a package
Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 5:57 PM Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>>> There is no reason this functionality cannot be offered in Debian. We
>>> got complaints when we supported other browsers but not Google Chrome.
>>
>> Since Google Chrome is not part of Debian, shouldn't this
>>
Dropping the other CC's for courtesy.
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 5:57 PM Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > There is no reason this functionality cannot be offered in Debian. We
> > got complaints when we supported other browsers but not Google Chrome.
>
> Since Google Chrome is not part of Debian,
unmerge 888546
reassign 888546 chrome-gnome-shell
thanks
With this unmerge and reassign, I'm keeping each bug where they were
originally reported.
Holger, this one (#888546) is the bug that you reported. If you think
it is really a bug in piuparts, feel free to reassign again.
[ After this I
Hi,
Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 4:40 PM Santiago Vila wrote:
>> What I said is that no sane package in Debian/main should need to put
>> files directly in /etc/opt. That's an oddity, a very unorthodox thing,
>> it would be like a Debian package in main putting stuff directly
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 08:59:39PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> a.) using /opt/etc and shipping files there is fine today and piuparts
> should not complain here
Could you briefly explain in which way the most recent FHS is more
permissive than previous releases?
If we allow using /etc/opt
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 05:15:48PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 4:40 PM Santiago Vila wrote:
> > What I said is that no sane package in Debian/main should need to put
> > files directly in /etc/opt. That's an oddity, a very unorthodox thing,
> > it would be like a Debian
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 4:40 PM Santiago Vila wrote:
> What I said is that no sane package in Debian/main should need to put
> files directly in /etc/opt. That's an oddity, a very unorthodox thing,
> it would be like a Debian package in main putting stuff directly in /opt.
chrome-gnome-shell (in
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 10:47:16PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 08:41:49PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 10:28:18PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > > Can we reassing this already, please?
> >
> > for those watching along:
> > - #93390 is
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 08:41:49PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 10:28:18PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Can we reassing this already, please?
>
> for those watching along:
> - #93390 is closed.
> - #888549 is assigned to chrome-gnome-shell
I was referring to #888243,
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 01:38:19PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 1:31 PM Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Please reassign. This is not a bug in base-files.
>
> Let's specifically talk about https://bugs.debian.org/888549 . You
> opened that bug claiming that chrome-gnome-shell
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 10:28:18PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 01:23:32PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
>
> > References
> >
> > [...]
> > - https://bugs.debian.org/93390
>
> Are you serious?
[...]
> Can we reassing this already, please?
for those
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 01:23:32PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> References
>
> [...]
> - https://bugs.debian.org/93390
Are you serious?
Such bug was in 2001-04-10, but in 2001-11-09 I modified base-files
to provide the opt directories, this is from the changelog:
base-files
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 1:31 PM Santiago Vila wrote:
> Please reassign. This is not a bug in base-files.
Let's specifically talk about https://bugs.debian.org/888549 . You
opened that bug claiming that chrome-gnome-shell wasn't compliant with
FHS but it is compliant.
> We pass the FHS
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 01:23:32PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> Santiago, can we revisit this?
>
> Debian Policy § 9.1.1 since 4.1.5.0 requires compliance with FHS 3.0
> and I don't see any listed exception for /etc/opt/ .
>
> FHS 3.0 § 3.7.2 requires /etc/opt/ . (§ 3.2 also requires /opt)
We
Santiago, can we revisit this?
Debian Policy § 9.1.1 since 4.1.5.0 requires compliance with FHS 3.0
and I don't see any listed exception for /etc/opt/ .
FHS 3.0 § 3.7.2 requires /etc/opt/ . (§ 3.2 also requires /opt)
References
-
22 matches
Mail list logo