On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 03:51:15PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk writes:
+ p
+ The upstream version number must not include a non-linear
+ revision ID or hash, since it cannot help in ordering
+ versions and it tends to result in
Hi Lars,
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 06:41:10PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
But shouldn't we say they _must_ lock package-specific system users
and groups when the package is removed ?
I think that's a good idea. Steve Langasek in the bug (#621833) and
others agree, so I think there's a
Hi all,
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 02:25:36AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I agree that the accounts should not be deleted, but that the packages
should still be responsible for certain forms of cleanup:
- removing the user home directory (on purge?)
- locking the account
- (optional)
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:03:34AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
sean finney sean...@seanius.net writes:
For locking the account, I think it could be problematic if you have
some kind of central account management system (i.e. LDAP/AD), and you
don't want to lock it globally.
Yeah
Hi Jonathan,
On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 15:58 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
* how many characters of grace area can tools like dpkg-divert feel
free to use?
I don't think tools should be like whoa, i think this filename is going
to be too long for some arbitrary value, nor should they be like
Hi,
I don't think policy really has much place establishing an arbitrary
file limit either, though.
Having a warning in lintian for arbitrarily long (perhaps = 256)
filenames is totally reasonable i'd say, but there's no reason to
otherwise throw out limits for the sake of having them. It
hi jonathan,
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 13:11 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Now that I check, the path provoking this was 269 characters
(including leading '.'). I'm able to install the package, both on
tmpfs and ext4, without trouble. I suppose it would be interesting to
know: what was the
there and since it was not describing any particular rules but more
explanatory in nature.
Sean
From 5a9f66da4f9e0ca92ed8cb4ff20225896963bf04 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sean Finney sean...@debian.org
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:14:56 +
Subject: [PATCH] Document restrictions
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 18:22 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
Yes, this might need rewording. Some people claimed it was useful for
backports, so if the backports buildds are using the aptitude resolver,
they could make use of the alternatives without any changes to
debian/control; maybe it could be
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 06:03:12PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
If not, there is not much advantage to move them under /usr/lib as it is done
now. Most other parts for packaged web sites are already in
/usr/share/package. For simple sites, having the CGIs in /usr/lib/cgi-bin/
makes the
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 02:50:02PM +0200, Raphaël Hertzog wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.4.0
Severity: normal
The policy needs to be updated to take into account the dpkg triggers. At
the very least it needs to document the new invocations of the postinst in
chapter 6 (postinst
hi jan,
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 09:15:43AM +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
Not that I'm opposing to what you're saying but... every application in
the archive is configured during the installation process, possibly
asking debconf questions, providing defaults etc. After the installation
it
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 06:15:42PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I frankly hope that with /vendor/ + /usr/lib/cgi-bin/ (which we already
have), and maybe with some symlinks under /vendor/ we will be able to
address quite a lot of issues. It would be interesting to known which
one we can't.
Hi Manoj,
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:01:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Whoa. What makes for the situation to be unvoidable? Why
should this ever be needed? What if the (optinal) /var/www is not the
document root, and is not a symlink to the document root?
I think we
hi,
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 09:37:26AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
Under what circumstances, if any, is it considered acceptable for a
package which is installed as a dependency by the upgrade of another
package to silently break the system?
what defines silently break the system? that's
On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 04:04:46PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Or on removal, something like Removing this package will remove your
data in blahblah. Are you sure you want to continue? or better yet
Do you want to remove the data in blahblah? [Yes] [No] -- so you
could uninstall the package
On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 09:44:50AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The question is, why should we change something so deeply
deployed as package postinst API without compelling reasons that the
postinst should treat an upgrade differently from a reconfigure,
especially since the user
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:04:59AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:06:54AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
If one is using a tool such as git-buildpackage, the debian and
upstream branches are the *minimum* required information however.
That sounds to me like a defect in
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:29:35PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Is there actually packages that does not use debconf ?
dpkg...
sean
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
hi raphael,
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 08:10:21AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, sean finney wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:29:35PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Is there actually packages that does not use debconf ?
dpkg...
Not anymore, no. There's no prompting
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.0.1
Severity: normal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
hi,
i'm giving some TLC to fbpager a workspace/desktop pager for the fluxbox
window manager. while updating to the latest Standards-Version, menu-policy
and lintian cleanliness, i have
hi marcin,
On Tuesday 24 July 2007 09:28:09 pm Marcin Owsiany wrote:
Hi,
I hope this is the right list to ask on.
i would suggest debian-devel, or possibly even debian-mentors.
Now I need to decide what the relationship between these two should be.
I would suggest at least a Recommends (as
On Tuesday 26 June 2007 18:15:47 Neil McGovern wrote:
Great :) Not sure if these changes need re-seconding now though.
well, if there's any possibility that they do, consider them re-seconded :)
sean
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
hi fergal,
On Sat, 2006-12-02 at 04:51 +, Fergal Daly wrote:
The document above says that start should start the service but it
seems there are quite a few debian packages where this does not work
because their initscripts contain things like
---
test -f /etc/default/fetchmail || exit
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 19:41 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Here's a proposed patch. What do people think about this approach? I
know there was an inconclusive Policy discussion a while back about how
best to deal with this issue. As you can tell from this patch, I favor
the approach of
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 03:07 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
What's the importance of Debian Policy if RM team can do whatever they
want? How we can ensure that Debian has the minimal quality when it's
get release?
the change would make it reflect the fact that this is already the
reality--that
cc'ing debian-policy for their feedback...
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 12:21:10PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* martin f. krafft:
Thanks to the work of our DPL Anthony aj Towns (and all the other
people who have worked on this without my knowledge), I am happy to
announce that dak, our
hey joey (et al),
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 01:33:58PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
sean finney wrote:
this is a surprising change. guess that's what i get for not being
subscribed to -policy :)
Not really, it was last discussed on -policy in 2003, so being
subscribed wouldn't have helped, I'm
hey joey,
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 02:51:50PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
AFAIK apache2 is the only web server package that allows scriptaliases
to be added to it in a policy conformant way (by dropping config file
snippets into /etc/apache2/conf.d/. Other web servers that support
scriptalias,
is that by sending it to debian-policy i might get some
additional feedback.
thanks,
sean
ps - please cc me, i'm not on debian-policy
- Forwarded message from sean finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 03:19:58 -0500
From: sean finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-devel
30 matches
Mail list logo
