Bug#878967: debian-policy: clarify purpose of debian/changelog

Ross Vandegrift writes: > Section 4.4 explains quite a bit about debian/changelog, but doesn't > really explain its purpose. I took its purpose to be recording history > and driving automation - which led to some mistakes that might've been > avoided. During a recent thread

Bug#878967: debian-policy: clarify purpose of debian/changelog

control: tag -1 +moreinfo Hello Ross, On Tue, Oct 17 2017, Ross Vandegrift wrote: > Package: debian-policy Version: 4.1.1.1 Severity: normal > > Section 4.4 explains quite a bit about debian/changelog, but doesn't > really explain its purpose. Have you seen Developer's Reference 5.2? That

Processed: Re: Bug#878967: debian-policy: clarify purpose of debian/changelog

Processing control commands: > tag -1 +moreinfo Bug #878967 [debian-policy] debian-policy: clarify purpose of debian/changelog Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 878967: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=878967 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#879049: debian-policy: 4.9.1: Allow nodoc to be used to not create empty -doc packages

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 14:58:24 -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Simon McVittie wrote: > > I don't think this is a policy violation: you're mixing up the nodoc > > build profile with the nodoc build option. > > Specifically, this is what I used in my

Bug#879049: debian-policy: 4.9.1: Allow nodoc to be used to not create empty -doc packages

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 20:30:20 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 02:16:48PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > > I don't think there is any benefit to anyone from empty -doc packages. > > What about packages that depend on -doc packages ? > They might become uninstallable. I can

Bug#879049: debian-policy: 4.9.1: Allow nodoc to be used to not create empty -doc packages

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 14:16:48 -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote: >> This is technically a violation of Debian Policy 4.9.1 which has this wording >> "This option does not change the set of binary packages generated by >> the

Bug#879049: debian-policy: 4.9.1: Allow nodoc to be used to not create empty -doc packages

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 14:16:48 -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > Source: debian-policy > Version: 4.1.1.1 > > I recently introduced support for nodoc for libgdamm5.0 in its > packaging branch (not uploaded to unstable yet) [1]. Since there is > only one arch-indep package, the -doc package, there

Bug#879049: debian-policy: 4.9.1: Allow nodoc to be used to not create empty -doc packages

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 02:16:48PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > Source: debian-policy > Version: 4.1.1.1 > > I recently introduced support for nodoc for libgdamm5.0 in its > packaging branch (not uploaded to unstable yet) [1]. Since there is > only one arch-indep package, the -doc package, there

Processed: block 879048 with 876075

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > block 879048 with 876075 Bug #879048 [debian-policy] debian-policy: footnote links pointing to wrong location 879048 was not blocked by any bugs. 879048 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 879048: 876075 > thanks Stopping

Bug#879049: debian-policy: 4.9.1: Allow nodoc to be used to not create empty -doc packages

Source: debian-policy Version: 4.1.1.1 I recently introduced support for nodoc for libgdamm5.0 in its packaging branch (not uploaded to unstable yet) [1]. Since there is only one arch-indep package, the -doc package, there are no packages built when an arch-indep build is attempted with the

Bug#879048: debian-policy: footnote links pointing to wrong location

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.1.1.1 Severity: minor Dear Maintainer, I noticed that some footnote links in the HTML output are pointing to wrong locations. For example in [12.3] there is a footnote "[7]", which links to "#id17". But instead of leading to the footnote text, the target is some

Bug#878905: debian-policy: Document installability recommendations for dependency alternatives

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:47:56AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 11:54:49 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:02:21AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > > This is made especially difficult because since policy 4.0.1.0 we are not > > > able > > >

Bug#878905: debian-policy: Document installability recommendations for dependency alternatives

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 11:54:49 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:02:21AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > This is made especially difficult because since policy 4.0.1.0 we are not > > able > > to rely on 'priority: optional' packages being installable any more. > >

Bug#878905: debian-policy: Document installability recommendations for dependency alternatives

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:02:21AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Hi, > > Julian Andres Klode wrote: > > > APT's solver is greedy and sometimes has a hard time to recover from paths > > that > > don't work out in the end. We see this with opencv failing to build on > > !linux-any > > because:

Bug#878967: debian-policy: clarify purpose of debian/changelog

On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 at 23:06:29 -0700, Ross Vandegrift wrote: > During a > recent thread on mentors [1], I learned that the purpose is to provide a human > readable list of changes between released versions of Debian. Between released versions of the package in Debian, rather than versions of

Bug#878967: debian-policy: clarify purpose of debian/changelog

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.1.1.1 Severity: normal Section 4.4 explains quite a bit about debian/changelog, but doesn't really explain its purpose. I took its purpose to be recording history and driving automation - which led to some mistakes that might've been avoided. During a recent