Bug#872146: dpkg: dpkg --verify complains about /usr/share/man/man1/cpp.1.gz

2017-08-14 Thread Sven Joachim
On 2017-08-14 17:26 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: > Package: dpkg > Version: 1.18.24 > Severity: normal > > Something strange is happening here: "dpkg --verify" complains about the > file /usr/share/man/man1/cpp.1.gz (a symlink shipped in the cpp-doc > package), but only if the package containing it

Processed: Re: Bug#790040: tex-common: doesn't properly clean up legacy files

2017-08-14 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > reassign 790040 dpkg Bug #790040 [tex-common] tex-common: doesn't properly clean up legacy files Bug reassigned from package 'tex-common' to 'dpkg'. No longer marked as found in versions tex-common/6.01. Ignoring request to alter fixed versions

Re: Upstream Tarball Signature Files

2017-08-14 Thread Paul Hardy
Russ, On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > This isn't a debian-policy matter... > My thinking was it would be beneficial for Debian Policy to suggest (but not require) use of upstream OpenPGP signatures when available, because such signature

Bug#872146: dpkg: dpkg --verify complains about /usr/share/man/man1/cpp.1.gz

2017-08-14 Thread Sven Joachim
Package: dpkg Version: 1.18.24 Severity: normal Something strange is happening here: "dpkg --verify" complains about the file /usr/share/man/man1/cpp.1.gz (a symlink shipped in the cpp-doc package), but only if the package containing it is _not_ given on the commandline. , | $ dpkg -S

Re: Upstream Tarball Signature Files

2017-08-14 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Mon, 14 Aug 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes: > > On Sun, 13 Aug 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> it can't just move the file -- it has to ASCII-armor it. But still, I > >> think that's the right thing for the tools to do, not add another file. >

Re: Upstream Tarball Signature Files

2017-08-14 Thread Russ Allbery
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes: > We do when the binary sig is small enough to be stored along with the > inode, instead of requiring an entire filesystem block (4KiB), and the > armored signature is not small enough for that :-( Of course, this > really depends a lot on the

Re: Upstream Tarball Signature Files

2017-08-14 Thread Russ Allbery
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes: > On Sun, 13 Aug 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: >> it can't just move the file -- it has to ASCII-armor it. But still, I >> think that's the right thing for the tools to do, not add another file. >> (The ASCII format is completely equivalent to