Re: Bug#55730: Changes in handling library dependencies

Roman Hodek wrote: How do we ensure that someone upgrading a package from potato to woody pulls in all of the required libraries? As a concrete example, /usr/bin/foo in the foo package depends upon libbar directly and libbar depends upon libbaz indirectly. In potato, libbar does not

Bug#55048: PROPOSAL] clarify update-rc.d stuff

seconded Well, it seems that my update-rc.d clarifications were confusing. So here is an attempt to clean up the wording in section 3.3.1 of policy. There is no intended change of meaning, but it clarifies that we are only talking about maintainer scripts and not human administrators. --

policy summary

Here's what's been happening on debian-policy lately. Let me know about consensuses I have missed. Note: for details of the policy process, see http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/policy/ch3.html. Also, this summary is available on the web at http://kitenet.net/~joey/policy-weekly.html.

Re: policy summary

On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 04:06:33PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: Here's what's been happening on debian-policy lately. Let me know about consensuses I have missed. I'm afraid I don't understand what your criteria are for determining consensus; I made my 9 X policy proposals on the same day. It looks

Re: policy summary

Previously Joey Hess wrote: Amendments Changes in handling library dependencies (#55730) * Under discussion. I don't think the proposal itself is under discussion, everyone seems to agree it is a good idea. The only

Re: policy summary

Seth R Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: undocumented.7 points people to /usr/doc/foo and /usr/lib/foo -- but not /usr/share/doc/foo At the moment, it shouldn't need to -- while it's true that we're migrating to /usr/share/doc, it is still a bug to not have a link in /usr/doc. And it's *not* a

Re: policy summary

Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [1 text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)] Previously Joey Hess wrote: Amendments Changes in handling library dependencies (#55730) * Under discussion. I don't think the proposal itself is under discussion,

Re: Custom undocumented(7)s are just as bad.

Zed Pobre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Jan 20, 2000 at 11:01:30PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote: a binary is not meant to be called by the user, it is a bug to have it in the PATH. Yup. It probably is. In some cases, a permanent bug, since sheer logistics are going to

Re: policy summary

Chris Waters wrote: Moreover, this is a technical change, and I think those follow somewhat different rules, no? And IIRC, it's not really a policy change; the bug was filed against the packaging manual, no? Should it even be on this list? No, it was filed on the policy manual, see the bug

Re: policy summary

Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Joey Hess wrote: Amendments Changes in handling library dependencies (#55730) * Under discussion. I don't think the proposal itself is under discussion, everyone seems to agree it

Re: policy summary [http_proxy]

Http_proxy and web clients (#54524) * Under discussion. * Proposed by Nicolás Lichtmaier; seconded by Chris Lawrence and J.H.M. Dassen. * Requires that all web clients must honour the http_proxy environment variable, and that they should honour the ftp_proxy veraibe if

Bug#54968: Lintian, archive maintenance and and policy

Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This would take the form of a `Known-Problems' field in the .changes file. Initially this would be an X-C-Known-Problems so that old versions of dpkg-dev can build packages; the archive script would understand both. The syntax would be something like