Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.0.0
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Dear all,
as promised one year and a half ago
(http://lists.debian.org/20090201011604.GF13843%40kunpuu.plessy.org), here is a
patch that removes the mention of the use of substvars for dpkg-source and
dpkg-genchanges.
t
Hi,
On 19/07/10 10:03, Charles Plessy wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.0.0
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Dear all,
as promised one year and a half ago
(http://lists.debian.org/20090201011604.GF13843%40kunpuu.plessy.org), here is
a
patch that removes the mention of the use
On 19/07/10 07:20, Charles Plessy wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.0.0
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Dear all,
during the discussion about team uploads (http://wiki.debian.org/TeamUpload),
it was proposed to send a patch to the Policy, to include a footnotes that
reminds
What other implementations of WSGI on the server side are there in Debian
besides libapache2-mod-wsgi? I want to get a feel for how broad the usage
of the virtual package would be.
gunicorn, python-pastescript, python-flup, python-cherrypy3, etc.
see http://wsgi.org/wsgi/Servers
--
Piotr
* Russ Allbery r...@debian.org [100718 19:30]:
Ideally, it would be nice to be able to sort out packages by priority and,
from that, build, say, a CD set of only the important and higher packages
and know that it's self-contained. In practice, I suspect that we have
enough packages with
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:41:54PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Russ Allbery r...@debian.org [100718 19:30]:
Ideally, it would be nice to be able to sort out packages by priority and,
from that, build, say, a CD set of only the important and higher packages
and know that it's
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:41:54PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
The difference between optional and extra is indeed mood today. But I
guess that is mostly because dh_make is making everything optional
instead of extra by default...
Most packages can be optional, since they don't
Hi!
On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 17:03:21 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
t a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 0b3c1a1..597100e 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -2190,10 +2190,9 @@ endif
headingVariable substitutions: filedebian/substvars/file/heading
p
- When
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
Ludovic Brenta ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org writes:
Yes, the information is still current and correct. (One does not change
a sound design decision that has proven its worth for years... :) )
Okay, here is a proposed patch which implements the request in this bug
report. Objections or seconds?
Hi,
On 19/07/10 18:34, Russ Allbery wrote:
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 6943397..3a70475 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -5389,6 +5389,14 @@ Replaces: mail-transport-agent
(prgnld/prgn) when compiling packages, as it will only look for
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Here, many years later, is a proposed patch implementing that, omitting
www-browser because it's not (yet) documented by Policy and adding
x-terminal-emulator.
Objections or seconds?
This change has now been merged for the next release.
--
Russ Allbery
Bernhard R. Link writes (Re: Priority dependence):
Calculating a dependency closure is neither an easy nor an task with
a well-defined outcome. Starting with more data makes that both more
easy and more likely to come to deterministic results (with a good
enough starting set, most dependencies
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
One of the first steps to be able to address this bug is to talk about
these files in a coherent way. This raises the unfortunate spectre of
the repeated use of control file for both files in the control.tar.gz
member of a *.deb archive and for files
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort poch...@gmail.com writes:
On 13/07/10 04:11, Russ Allbery wrote:
+p
+ The run-time shared library must be placed in a package
+ whose name changes whenever the ttSONAME/tt of the shared
+ library changes. This allows several versions of the shared
Hi,
On 19/07/10 18:49, Russ Allbery wrote:
Now that the terminology is in, the patch to address the normative issue
in this bug is short and simple. Objections or seconds?
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index c0415c1..9aca16c 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -8014,6
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:49:31 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index c0415c1..9aca16c 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -8014,6 +8014,12 @@ endscript
/footnote
/p
+ p
+ Control information files should be owned
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Hm, but actually, isn't the magic of should appropriate here? If a
package is unmaintained but not orphaned, that *is* a bug, which is what
should means. Admittedly, Policy normally only governs the contents
of packages and not procedural issues in
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
during the discussion about team uploads
(http://wiki.debian.org/TeamUpload), it was proposed to send a patch to
the Policy, to include a footnotes that reminds that sometimes the first
line of a changelog has a special meaning, and point at the
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
as promised one year and a half ago
(http://lists.debian.org/20090201011604.GF13843%40kunpuu.plessy.org),
here is a patch that removes the mention of the use of substvars for
dpkg-source and dpkg-genchanges.
Thanks, this has been merged for the next
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to
Piotr Ożarowski pi...@debian.org writes:
What other implementations of WSGI on the server side are there in
Debian besides libapache2-mod-wsgi? I want to get a feel for how broad
the usage of the virtual package would be.
gunicorn, python-pastescript, python-flup, python-cherrypy3, etc.
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to
We've accumulated quite a list of changes for the next release, and I'd
like to get out another Debian Policy release before Debconf. Since I'm
going to be travelling weekend after next (to Debconf), that means I'm
currently tentatively planning a release next weekend.
As usual, this depends on
[Russ Allbery, 2010-07-19]
Piotr Ożarowski pi...@debian.org writes:
What other implementations of WSGI on the server side are there in
Debian besides libapache2-mod-wsgi? I want to get a feel for how broad
the usage of the virtual package would be.
gunicorn, python-pastescript,
* Russ Allbery r...@debian.org, 2010-07-19, 09:49:
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index c0415c1..9aca16c 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -8014,6 +8014,12 @@ endscript
/footnote
/p
+ p
+ Control information files should be owned by
On snein 11 July 2010, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:22:28AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org writes:
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 08:59:24 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
+postrotate
+[ -f /var/run/foo.pid ] kill -s HUP `cat
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal
This sentence in Policy 2.5 is too prohibitive:
Systems with only the required packages are probably unusable, but they
do have enough functionality to allow the sysadmin to boot and install
more software.
I would suggest a more open wording:
Systems with
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to
Hi Neil,
On moandei 19 July 2010, Neil Williams wrote:
This sentence in Policy 2.5 is too prohibitive:
Systems with only the required packages are probably unusable, but they
do have enough functionality to allow the sysadmin to boot and install
more software.
I would suggest a more open
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 23:05:39 +0200
Thijs Kinkhorst th...@debian.org wrote:
Hi Neil,
On moandei 19 July 2010, Neil Williams wrote:
This sentence in Policy 2.5 is too prohibitive:
Systems with only the required packages are probably unusable, but
they do have enough functionality to allow
Le Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:45:29AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
while we have a lot of changes, they're mostly documentation of
existing practices
Hi Russ,
I am actually wondering if such changes desserve an entry in the upgrading
checklist, since no package need to be changed. If the
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
I am actually wondering if such changes desserve an entry in the
upgrading checklist, since no package need to be changed. If the
checklist is exhaustive, it makes it redundant with the changelog. As a
maintainer who often reads the checklist, I would
38 matches
Mail list logo
