Bug#770016: Clarify network access for building packages in main

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 04:47:00PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Bill Allombert wrote: > > --- a/policy.sgml > > +++ b/policy.sgml > > @@ -1928,12 +1928,16 @@ zope. > > impossible to auto-compile that package and also makes

Bug#770016: Clarify network access for building packages in main

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:52:54PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 09:24:15PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > > 2.2.1 says "the packages in main > > > > > >must not require or recommend a package outside of main for > > > compilation or > > > execution (thus, the p

Bug#768117: debian-policy: WSGI API must distinguish between Python 2 and 3

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 05:45:37PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > On 23/11/14 17:19, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 02:38:39PM +1100, Brian May wrote: > >> We need two virtual package names, one for Python2 and one for Python3. > > > > What I am u

Bug#768117: debian-policy: WSGI API must distinguish between Python 2 and 3

On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 02:38:39PM +1100, Brian May wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: normal > > The httpd-wsgi virtual name was added in response to #588497. > > However, as per the following email: > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/09/msg00719.html > > "WSGI is an API,

Bug#770016: Clarify network access for building packages in main

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 03:03:07PM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: wishlist > > 2.2.1 says "the packages in main > >must not require or recommend a package outside of main for compilation or > execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Pre-Depends",

Bug#666726: debian-policy: Clarify if empty control fields are ollowed or not

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 01:46:10PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Bill Allombert wrote: > > diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml > > index 6eac491..66de529 100644 > > --- a/policy.sgml > > +++ b/policy.sgml > &

Bug#459427: changelog vs. NEWS handling

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 09:21:02PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Peter Eisentraut , 2008-01-06, 14:55: > >I think that installing a source-level change list is hardly ever > >useful for a binary package. > > It's normally more useful that no changelog at all. :-) > > What I tend to do in my packag

Bug#666726: debian-policy: Clarify if empty control fields are ollowed or not

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 08:15:03AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sat, 22 Nov 2014, Charles Plessy wrote: > > Le Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:56:15AM +0100, Bill Allombert a écrit : > > > What about automatically generated control files and substvar ? > &

Bug#666726: debian-policy: Clarify if empty control fields are ollowed or not

> From: Charles Plessy > Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 11:16:50 +0900 > Subject: [PATCH] Disallow empty fields in control files, as apt and dak > reject them already. > > Closes: 666726 > --- > policy.sgml |8 > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/policy.sgml

Bug#555979: debian-policy: Symlinks pointing beyond the root of the file system

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 01:58:41AM +, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:39:44PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 04:31:52PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > Lintian has a tag: > > > Tag: symlink-has-too-many-up-segments > > > Severity: serious > > >

Bug#555979: debian-policy: Symlinks pointing beyond the root of the file system

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:39:44PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > Control: tags -1 + patch > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 04:31:52PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Lintian has a tag: > > > > Tag: symlink-has-too-many-up-segments > > Severity: serious > > Certainty: certain > > Ref: policy 10.5 >

Bug#212814: please clarify 3.4: description of a package

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:22:19PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 10:55:44AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > triggered by #209693, the question is, if the long description should > > be understandable on its own, or together with the short description. > > > > Desc

Bug#666726: debian-policy: Clarify if empty control fields are ollowed or not

On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:59:45PM +0200, Andreas Noteng wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: minor > > The policy does not clearly state if empty control fields in debian/control > are > allowed or not. dpkg accepts te use of empty fields, apt does not. > IMHO empty control fields are bad

Bug#666726: debian-policy: Clarify if empty control fields are ollowed or not

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:05:05AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:23:17AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit : > > Control: tags -1 + patch > > > > On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 11:19:15AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > > How about the attached patch, that adds "Its value mus

Bug#769219: upload of policy 3.9.6.1 to fix Bug#769219

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:19:32PM +0100, David Bremner wrote: > I have only tested the first one. In all cases build-depends may need > adjusting. I also noticed that the same hacking out of TeX stuff I did > to README.org is needed for Process.org. Thank for the tip, this resolve the remaining

Bug#759260: removal of the Extra priority.

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 02:29:46PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 01:59:37PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > >>And received > >> pushback from maintainers

Bug#759260: removal of the Extra priority.

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 01:59:37PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Santiago Vila wrote: > > > In this case, however, I fail to see the rationale for actually > > *dropping* the extra priority, other than "it's not useful for me". > > Well, it may be useless for you but it's still useful for me. >

Bug#759260: removal of the Extra priority.

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 08:51:02AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Santiago Vila writes: > > An alternative would be to say that all software that doesn't warrant > standard or higher should be packaged with priority optional *unless* it > conflicts with something, in which case it should be priorit

Bug#769219: function moved

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:10:30PM +0100, David Bremner wrote: > Rob Browning writes: > > > Bill Allombert writes: > > > >> What to do for ascii : > >> > >> emacs24 --batch -Q -l ./README-css.el -l org -l org-ascii > >> --visit Process.org

Bug#758234: transitive dependencies

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 04:31:37PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > On 15/11/14 09:35, Santiago Vila wrote: > > If those are the real reasons, then let's drop the rule only for > > *libraries*, but not for every other package. > > I think libraries are merely the most visible and obvious example of

Bug#769219: function moved

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:10:30PM +0100, David Bremner wrote: > Rob Browning writes: > > > Bill Allombert writes: > > > >> What to do for ascii : > >> > >> emacs24 --batch -Q -l ./README-css.el -l org -l org-ascii > >> --visit Process.org

Re: missing technical policy for systemd

On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 05:53:14AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Nov 01, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > Is there alternative documents describing the interfaces for packages to > > interoperate with systemd, and transition documents available for packagers > > and &g

Bug#758234: transitive dependencies

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 01:24:32PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > [ re-post, signed ] > > I'd like to formally propose the following Policy change to fix the > "depend on packages with lower dependencies" non-problem. > > This does simplify current practice, but unfortunately not Policy itself,

Bug#769219: function moved

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 09:46:28PM +0100, David Bremner wrote: > Bill Allombert writes: > >> That function is now in ox-html.el > > > > Are you sure ? > > grep org-export-as-html-batch > > /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/org-mode/ox-html.el > > does not re

Bug#769219: function moved

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 07:40:14PM +0100, David Bremner wrote: Hello David, Thanks for your help! > That function is now in ox-html.el Are you sure ? grep org-export-as-html-batch /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/org-mode/ox-html.el does not return anything. > Maybe loading that explicitly (as well

Re: Bug#769273: bsdutils: Dependency on libsystemd0 violates policy

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 03:04:56PM +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > Hello Tim Wootton, release-team, et.al.! > > Thanks for your bug report. > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:00:16AM +, Tim Wootton wrote: > > Package: bsdutils > > Version: 1:2.25.2-2 > > Severity: serious > > Justification: Po

Bug#769219: debian-policy: FTBFS in jessie: emacs24 fails

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 08:52:21AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Hi, > > During a rebuild of all packages in jessie (in a jessie chroot, not a > sid chroot), your package failed to build on amd64. > > Relevant part (hopefully): > > rm menu-policy.html/index.html perl-policy.html/index.html > >

Bug#768292: debian-policy: please allow copyright file to refer to license text in separate files

On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 09:44:29AM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: wishlist > > [X-Debbugs-Cc: ftpmas...@debian.org because I know the Policy maintainers > don't actually control what is or isn't acceptable in the archive in this > respect.] > > Some packages cur

missing technical policy for systemd

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:39:04AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > The technical committee was asked in #727708 to decide which init > system would be the default init system for Debian. The decision is > below: > > RESOLUTION > > We exercise our power to decide in cases of overlapping ju

Re: where to maintain DEP8^W autopkgtest spec now

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 04:20:38PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 11:52:14PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > It took me a bit longer than that (sorry about that), but you can now > > find attached to this mail my first attempt at adding the autopkgtest > > spec to t

Re: where to maintain DEP8^W autopkgtest spec now

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 09:54:23AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Stefano Zacchiroli writes: > > > Great. So with both you and Antonio OK with the idea, I think we can > > proceed (see below for a follow-up on collab-maint). And next action is > > probably on me, to "import" the current DEP8 spec t

uploading policy 3.9.6.0 to fix emacs23->emacs24 transition

Dear policy team, If there is no objection, I plan to upload 3.9.6.0 tomorrow as is to fix bug #753999 (emacs24 transition). I still have hope for a second upload before the freeze. Cheers, Bill. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Bug#753999: debian-policy: please switch to emacs24

On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 01:38:07PM -0500, Rob Browning wrote: > Gabriele Giacone <1o5g4...@gmail.com> writes: > > > mass bug filer on behalf of Rob Browning, emacs maintainer > > --- debian/control.orig 2014-07-06 13:10:21.364467678 +0200 > > +++ debian/control 2014-07-06 13:10:36.516651745 +

Re: Bug#758231: rsyslog: is priority important, depends on packages with priority extra

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 06:31:39PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 15.08.2014 18:10, schrieb Michael Biebl: > > Am 15.08.2014 17:47, schrieb Gerrit Pape: > >> Severity: serious > >> Justification: Policy 2.5 > > [..] > > > That this rule is violated in hundreds of cases [1] clearly shows that >

Bug#509935: decide whether Uploaders is parsed per RFC 5322

On Sun, Aug 03, 2014 at 04:51:28PM +1000, Stuart Prescott wrote: > Control: block 686638 by 509935 > > Hi! > > I quite like Jakub's suggestion that we use /\>\K\s*,\s*/ to split the list > of > Uploaders. It's very permissive and will suit our needs for this field but > doesn't imply a large a

Bug#491547: web server policy requires /var/www, not in FHS

On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 09:52:58PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Hi, > > Bill Allombert: > > On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 01:21:19PM +0200, Arno Töll wrote: > > > > diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml > > > > index bf959f1..5661f4b 100644 > > &g

Bug#593611: Clarify whose signature should go in debian/changelog (4.4)

On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 12:14:41PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bill Allombert writes: > > >>>>> --- a/policy.sgml > >>>>> +++ b/policy.sgml > >>>>> @@ -1688,11 +1688,14 @@ > >>>>> > >>>

Bug#664257: multiarch tuples are not documented/defined

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:31:33AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: Bug#664257: multiarch tuples are not > documented/defined"): > > It is a bug in Debian: The multiarch tuples are not documented/defined > > in Debian. > > They are now documented on the wiki, as previ

Bug#664257: multiarch tuples are not documented/defined

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 05:31:13PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:41:01AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > Hi Russ et al, > > First, thanks Jonathan a lot for providing this patch. While this is > not the full story this gives us a better basis to

small editorial fix (multiarch)

Dear policy team, For your information, I have pushed the following fix: commit 94af6993b04df63bb2b677b1a8b0d6efcb848549 Author: Bill Allombert Date: Wed Jul 30 15:28:56 2014 +0200 policy.sgml 9.1.1: Remove 'the planned development of' before multiarch diff --git a/pol

Bug#593611: Clarify whose signature should go in debian/changelog (4.4)

On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 02:24:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 10:46:18AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Bill Allombert writes: > > > On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 09:10:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > > >> --- a/policy.sgml > &g

Bug#588497: New virtual package: httpd-wsgi

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:28:37PM +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Bill Allombert, 2014-07-30] > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 08:27:51AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > Bill Allombert wrote: > > > > Would that description be OK: > > > > > >

Bug#588497: New virtual package: httpd-wsgi

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:19:29PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Bill Allombert (2014-07-30 11:59:38) > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 08:27:51AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >> Bill Allombert wrote: > >>> Would that description be OK: > >>> >

Bug#588497: New virtual package: httpd-wsgi

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 08:27:51AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Bill Allombert wrote: > > Would that description be OK: > > > > httpd-wsgi A WSGI capable HTTP server > > > > Are there other developper maintaining WSGI related packages to second &

Re: where to maintain DEP8^W autopkgtest spec now

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:29:26AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > I'm a big fan of *code* maintenance collab-main, and I do encourage the > active autopkgtest hackers to move the code there. But I think it's a > bad idea to have *spec* maintained in a very open/collaborative place > --- again,

Bug#491547: web server policy requires /var/www, not in FHS

On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 01:21:19PM +0200, Arno Töll wrote: > Hi Bill, > > > I have made a first minimal draft. > > Please comment. > > > > diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml > > index bf959f1..5661f4b 100644 > > --- a/policy.sgml > > +++ b/policy.sgml > > @@ -7043,6 +7043,11 @@ Built-Using: g

Re: where to maintain DEP8^W autopkgtest spec now

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:26:46PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > To me, the most reasonable place to maintain it seems to be the > debian-policy package. Of course *not* as part of the official Debian > Policy Manual, but rather as an auxiliary policy (e.g., the Debian Perl > Policy). I'm gett

Bug#755890: marked as done (debian-policy: Some directory anf files from etc have unknown package pattern)

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:30:29AM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > > Hi > > This is the directory and files wo package dependency: > > /etc/.java > > /etc/environment > > /etc/.pwd.lock > > /etc/subgid > > /etc/subuid > > Comamnd is dpkg -S files_on_siscussion > > Dear Corcodel, > > th

Bug#754876: Virtual packages for the new Java runtimes

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:44:32AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > diff --git a/virtual-package-names-list.txt b/virtual-package-names-list.txt > index 2c2a175..ac98261 100644 > --- a/virtual-package-names-list.txt > +++ b/virtual-package-names-list.txt > @@ -161,8 +161,16

Bug#754876: Virtual packages for the new Java runtimes

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 09:39:33PM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > On 07/15/2014 11:30 AM, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:57:18PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > >> Le 15/07/2014 16:22, Bill Allombert a écrit : > >> > >>> Could you pleas

Bug#754876: Virtual packages for the new Java runtimes

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:57:18PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 15/07/2014 16:22, Bill Allombert a écrit : > > > Could you please write the definition for each of them, and determine > > whether > > java1-runtime and java2-runtime should be kept ? > > Hi Bil

Bug#754876: Virtual packages for the new Java runtimes

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 02:51:18PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: wishlist > > Hi, > > The list of virtual packages [1] contains only two packages for the Java > runtimes (java1-runtime and java2-runtime), but new virtual packages > have been in use since at lea

Bug#746514: Autoreconf during build

On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 09:42:23AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 04:46:53PM +0200, Bill Allombert a écrit : > > > > + > > + If your package includes the scripts config.sub and > > + config.guess, you shou

Bug#746514: Autoreconf during build

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:36:34PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > Package: debian-policy > > It seems that a lot of packages do not use something like > autoreconf during build, and every time someone starts a new > port he has to patches way too many packages to get config.guess > and config.sub upd

Re: improvements to the Developers Reference maintenance workflows?

On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 09:25:53AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 04:14:10PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > An easy improvement is to switch to Git and collab-maint, and to > > > announce that direct commits of consensual changes are OK. > > > After that, we could cal

Bug#753999: debian-policy: please switch to emacs24

On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 10:59:40AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bill Allombert writes: > > > Hello Gabriele, > > emacs24 has 50% more dependencies than emacs23, thus this is not very > > attractive. > > > Personnaly I would rather convert the two remaining .o

Bug#753999: debian-policy: please switch to emacs24

On Sun, Jul 06, 2014 at 11:04:44PM +0200, Gabriele Giacone wrote: > Source: debian-policy > Severity: normal > Tags: patch > User: r...@debian.org > Usertags: emacs24 > Control: block 753885 by -1 > > Dear maintainer, > > we're hoping to remove emacs23 from unstable/testing in future: > > http

Bug#753608: Clarify use of conflicts, clarify what constitutes abuse of the relation

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 11:52:23AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > I don't see a systemd-must-die package (conflicting with a core part of > the Distro) as being productive, helpful or necessary. I definitely > don't see it as there for the right reason. This is not for policy to decide that. >

Bug#753608: Clarify use of conflicts, clarify what constitutes abuse of the relation

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 11:01:28AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: important > thanks > > Hey Policy, > > I'd like to clarify the purpose of the Conflicts relation, as written in > section 7.2 and 7.4. > > Recently a package (systemd-must-die) was uploaded to

Bug#750017: perl-policy: All packages using Perl vendorarch directory need a perlapi-* dependency

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 08:49:24PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 10:10:33PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > Done. I added the following to upgrading-checklist: > > > > perl > >Perl package should use the %Config hash to locate module

Bug#753353: debian-policy contains ungrammatical phrase "must by installed"

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 09:06:36PM +0200, Benedikt Wildenhain wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Version: 3.9.5.0 > Severity: minor > Tags: patch > > Hello, > > policy.sgml contains the following sentence: > > The special value byhand for the section in a .changes > file indicates that the file i

Bug#750017: perl-policy: All packages using Perl vendorarch directory need a perlapi-* dependency

On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 07:36:36PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 07:09:13PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > > On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 09:53:11 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > > > Niko Tyni writes: > > > > I now realize that this wording

Bug#750017: perl-policy: All packages using Perl vendorarch directory need a perlapi-* dependency

On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 07:09:13PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 09:53:11 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > Niko Tyni writes: > > > I now realize that this wording unintentionally removes the perlapi > > > requirement for binary modules outside vendorarch (see for instance >

Bug#748380: perl-policy: @INC changes for multiarch

On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 07:24:26PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 03:50:35PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > Yes, it is always better to stick to one change per bug report. > > OK, I'll file separate bugs about the first two patches. > Please

Bug#555980: debian-policy: No policy on statically linked binaries

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:26:03AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Hi, > > Russ Allbery wrote: > > > Usually I argue for relaxing it to a should. In this case, I think we can > > flesh out the exception somewhat better and preserve the must. > > > > Binary executables must not be stati

Bug#742756: multi-arch and system-dependent header files

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:09:19AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bill Allombert writes: > > > OK, this is a first attempt (with 25 line of context). > > Seconded. > > We should eventually have a whole multiarch section that describes *when* > one should do this,

Bug#555980: debian-policy: No policy on statically linked binaries

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:46:48AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Hi, > > Bill Allombert wrote: > > > --- a/policy.sgml > > +++ b/policy.sgml > > @@ -8466,7 +8466,11 @@ fi > > renamed. If a consensus cannot be reached, bot

Bug#555980: debian-policy: No policy on statically linked binaries

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 06:00:13PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bill Allombert writes: > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 04:43:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >> Unless I'm missing something, and I did a text search through Policy, > >> Policy is currently silen

Bug#693793: New virtual packages: lv2-host and lv2-plugin

On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 12:11:24AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Hi Alessio, > > Alessio Treglia wrote: > > > So, here is my proposal (which I've already posted on debian-devel): > [...] > > + lv2-hostanything that can host LV2 audio plugins > > + lv2-plugin an LV2

Bug#742756: multi-arch and system-dependent header files

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 03:47:22PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bill Allombert writes: > > > <https://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/Implementation> says: > > > << If your -dev package contains headers which vary across architectures > > then it cannot be ma

Bug#746514: Autoreconf during build

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 05:02:00PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 01:34:05AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > > On 04/30/2014 10:36 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > Package: debian-policy > > > > It seems that a lot of packages do not use something like > > > autoreconf during bui

Bug#748479: perl-policy: Explain %Config earlier

On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 09:43:37PM +0300, Damyan Ivanov wrote: > -=| Niko Tyni, 17.05.2014 19:30:03 +0300 |=- > > Package: debian-policy > > Version: 3.9.5.0 > > X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-p...@lists.debian.org > > Severity: minor > > > > Policy version v3.9.0.0 (commit cc34dcc0) introduced > > a new %C

Bug#748480: perl-policy: @INC has /usr/lib/perl/5.18, not /usr/lib/perl/5.18.2

On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 07:35:23PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Version: 3.9.5.0 > X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-p...@lists.debian.org > > Since at least 5.8.4-8 (Debian sarge release), the Perl search path for > the core modules (archlib and privlib) has used the major version (5.18)

Bug#613143: there is /usr/lib64 symlink but no /usr/local/lib64

On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 01:20:42PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 12:51:05PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > >> FWIW I don't mind if you tweak the wording. > >> > >> Unfortunately it's not just

Bug#748480: perl-policy: @INC has /usr/lib/perl/5.18, not /usr/lib/perl/5.18.2

On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 09:45:19AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Niko Tyni writes: > > > Package: debian-policy > > Version: 3.9.5.0 > > X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-p...@lists.debian.org > > > Since at least 5.8.4-8 (Debian sarge release), the Perl search path for > > the core modules (archlib and privl

Bug#748380: perl-policy: @INC changes for multiarch

On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 07:24:26PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 03:50:35PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > Yes, it is always better to stick to one change per bug report. > > OK, I'll file separate bugs about the first two patches. > Please

Bug#748380: perl-policy: @INC changes for multiarch

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 08:37:03PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Version: 3.9.5.0 > X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-p...@lists.debian.org > > As discussed in the thread at > https://lists.debian.org/debian-perl/2014/05/msg00035.html > > we would like to change the perl search path (@IN

Bug#613143: there is /usr/lib64 symlink but no /usr/local/lib64

On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 01:20:42PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 12:51:05PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > >> FWIW I don't mind if you tweak the wording. > >> > >> Unfortunately it's not just

Bug#613143: there is /usr/lib64 symlink but no /usr/local/lib64

On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 12:51:05PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:15:57AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > >> Thanks. Applied. > > > > Well, I was working on a patch that looks like: > > > > +

Bug#613143: there is /usr/lib64 symlink but no /usr/local/lib64

On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:15:57AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > tags 613143 = pending > quit > > Russ Allbery wrote: > > > I second this as well, although I think it's unnecessary at this point. > > Thanks. Applied. Well, I was working on a patch that looks like: + The req

Bug#613143: there is /usr/lib64 symlink but no /usr/local/lib64

On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 09:08:58AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] Aurelien Jarno > > > How can we progress on this bug? We now have bugs #720777, #720778 and > > #720780 which ask for /usr/lib to be created if /lib exists. > > It's something that can be implemented, but before doing so, I wou

Bug#747320: Mandate "type" in /bin/sh

On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 02:32:39PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Version: 3.9.5.0 > > I came across this in /etc/init.d/exim4: > > OLDIFS="$IFS" > IFS=: > for p in $PATH; do > if [ -x "$p/$UPEX4CONF" ]; then > IFS="$OLDIFS" > $p/$UPEX4CONF $UPEX4OPTS >

Bug#491547: web server policy requires /var/www, not in FHS

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:43:11PM +0100, Arno Töll wrote: > Hi, > > On 22.03.2014 18:50, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Are the other HTTP engines going to also change the default document root to > > /var/www/html ? > > Yes. I tried to seek consensus with maintain

Bug#741304: add FHS exception for arch-indep in /usr/lib

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 07:00:39PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 25.03.2014 18:56, schrieb Michael Biebl: > > Am 20.03.2014 23:58, schrieb Bill Allombert: > >> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:39:17AM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > >>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 06:

Bug#741304: add FHS exception for arch-indep in /usr/lib

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 06:56:13PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 20.03.2014 23:58, schrieb Bill Allombert: > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:39:17AM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 06:39:20PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > >>> So, I propse addin

Bug#742756: multi-arch and system-dependent header files

Package: debian-policy Version: 3.9.5 says: << If your -dev package contains headers which vary across architectures then it cannot be marked as Multi-Arch: same until a policy decision is made about architecture-dependant headers and the toolcha

Bug#707851: Proposed changes on menu systems

> completely sensible to recommend the xdg menu for all desktop > applications. In my opinion policy should give clear advice for > maintainers to provide these desktop files. I just don't see the urgent > need to move the Debian menu to the attic right now. > > I would

Bug#707851: Please resume discussion on #707851 or defer decision to the TC.

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:42:55PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > Now, if you like to move forward with this issue, I would suggest you start > to split it in smaller chunks, where consensus would be easier to find. In the spirit of that, I have spun off the Media types declarations part

Bug#742532: Document media type declarations

Package: debian-policy Version: 3.9.6.0 Dear developers, To reduce clutter in the BTS log, I am opening a new bug for the second half of the proposal "Document media type declarations" by Charles Plessy in #707851, since I did not find specific objections registered about it. I join the patch. T

Bug#664257: multiarch tuples are not documented/defined

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:41:01AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Hi Russ et al, First, thanks Jonathan a lot for providing this patch. While this is not the full story this gives us a better basis to document multiarch. > - what should the normative content be? It would not be too strange >

Bug#671120: debian-policy: suggest delegating binary name conflicts to tech-ctte in last resort

On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 12:13:22AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: wishlist > > Please suggest delegating binary name conflicts to the tech-ctte in last > resort. Anything can be delegated to the tech-ctte. I do not think policy need to mention it. > * Russ Allbery

Bug#742364: Please clarify if how sourceless file could be corrected and how

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 09:50:11PM +, bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Version: 3.9.5.0 > Severity: important > control: block -1 by 736873 > > According to ftp masters see #736873: > >> For implementing automatic detection fo sourceless file particularly > >> minified javas

Bug#491547: web server policy requires /var/www, not in FHS

On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 02:00:39PM +0100, Arno Töll wrote: > Hi, > > even more so a discussion on debian-devel [1] came to the conclusion > that /var/www as a document root is security-wise a bad default for web > servers. > > Therefore, we, Apache maintainers, decided to change the default > doc

Bug#732445: debian-policy should encourage verification of upstream cryptographic signaturse

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:22:38PM -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: normal > Tags: patch > > debian-policy should encourage verification of upstream cryptographic > signatures. > > Since devscripts 2.13.3 (see #610712), uscan has supported the ability > to au

Bug#570141: Specific Homepage entry for abandoned software

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:29:49AM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > IIRC I was doing a QA upload for a package and I wanted to add a Homepage > field. > After some digging I noticed the original website went away. In that case > adding "Homepage: None" makes this explicit. I would second this,

Bug#570141: Specific Homepage entry for abandoned software

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 07:29:28PM -0500, Jonathan Yu wrote: > Hi, > > > I would like to propose the following extension to "5.6.23.", the > > "Homepage" header line: > > > > --- > > If no homepage exists, e.g. because the software is abandoned and > > vanished off the net, "None" can be specified

Bug#741304: add FHS exception for arch-indep in /usr/lib

he diff (in attachment). Cheers, -- Bill. Imagine a large red swirl here. commit be772247f2561c9630353d31f8869666a5e6f9db Author: Bill Allombert Date: Thu Mar 20 23:55:55 2014 +0100 Policy: Relax /usr/share FHS requirement for directories with mixed content. Wording: Joey Hess Seconded: Russ A

Bug#741304: add FHS exception for arch-indep in /usr/lib

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 07:00:52PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 06:39:20PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > >The FHS requirement that architecture-independent application-specific > >static files be located in /usr/share is relaxed to a suggestion. > > > >In particula

Bug#707851: Please resume discussion on #707851 or defer decision to the TC.

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 08:36:20AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Dear Andreas, Bill, Jonathan, and Russ, > > I am contacting you in your role as Policy Editors, about bug #707851. > > After almost one year of work, discussion and consensus-building, a proposal > was made to describe the FreeDesk

Bug#593611: Clarify whose signature should go in debian/changelog (4.4)

On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 01:43:10PM +, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > The proposed wording matches what I have done multiple times in the > past, and subsequently got condemned for. > > E.g. i've looked at the bug that affected me, and there was a debdiff > prepared by person X, with .1 nmu versi

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >