Hi,
On Sat, Jun 20 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 43cf4d6..528c4b9 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -3118,76 +3118,39 @@ Package: libc6
distribution(s) where this version of the package should
be installed. Valid
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
Here is an updated patch for stating that the Debian archive doesn't
support listing multiple distributions in the *.changes file. This
reduces the footnote of distributions to just a couple of examples and
defers to the devref for everything else.
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
Here is an updated patch for stating that the Debian archive doesn't
support listing multiple distributions in the *.changes file. This
reduces the footnote of distributions to just a couple of examples
and
Here is an updated patch for stating that the Debian archive doesn't
support listing multiple distributions in the *.changes file. This
reduces the footnote of distributions to just a couple of examples and
defers to the devref for everything else.
If this looks like the right approach, I'm
Colin Watson writes (Bug#514919: Removing support for uploads to multiple
distributions):
The mythical dpkg programmer's manual? :-)
The current policy manual was of course made by merging what I called
the dpkg programmers' manual and what I called the policy manual.
Regardless of what
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 19:35 +, Mark Hymers wrote:
In gmane.linux.debian.devel.policy, you wrote:
I think it's worth mentioning in the policy footnote that the Debian
archive doesn't (well, won't, to be entirely accurate) support the
feature and removing the suggestion that there is a
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 19:20 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Here's a proposed patch that limits the footnote to only discussing the
values that go into *.changes files, removes extraneous information about
the relative risk of unstable vs. testing, and mentions the other values
commonly seen in the
Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk writes:
That section sounds slightly strange to me. It starts by saying that
one cannot upload directly to testing, and finishes by indicating that a
distribution of t-p-u is used to upload directly to testing.
Maybe something like
+
On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 12:19 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I now have:
+ The emtesting/em distribution normally receives
+ its packages via the emunstable/em distribution
+ after a short time lag. However sometimes, such as
+
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 12:19:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I now have:
+ The emtesting/em distribution normally receives
+ its packages via the emunstable/em distribution
+ after a short time lag. However sometimes, such as
+
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be writes:
As far as I know, the archive maps uploads to testing to
testing-proposed-updates, and so both end up in t-p-u.
Yeah, but t-p-u is the recommended method, IIRC.
There is also testing-security, which first gets uploaded to
security-master.debian.org and
On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 22:59 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
As far as I know, the archive maps uploads to testing to
testing-proposed-updates, and so both end up in t-p-u.
That's correct. The s-p-u and t-p-u uploads I've made for devscripts
all had either stable or testing in the changelog.
Adam
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
Agreed.
In the long term, I would like to move all the documentation about the
syntax into dpkg itself and have the policy document how Debian uses
dpkg rather than documenting dpkg itself.
It's already in our TODO list to document the format of
Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org writes:
However, I'm not convinced that it is correct to remove this feature
from the *syntax*. While Ubuntu's archive maintenance software doesn't
support it right now, several people have requested it
(https://bugs.launchpad.net/soyuz/+bug/235064). If you're
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
It depends, and there can be some repetition when needed to ease the
comprehension. But you don't need to know the .changes syntax to create
policy conformant packages, you just have to know how to call
dpgk-genchanges and what to put in debian/files
Russ Allbery wrote:
Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk writes:
The Policy section detailing the Distribution field in .changes files
specifies that the field may contain a space-separated list of
distributions. Whilst this is technically accurate, the feature has been
deprecated since
In gmane.linux.debian.devel.policy, you wrote:
I think we should move distribution field from upload target to a
final target distribution, i.e. a sort of quality assessment.
I really don't like that maintainers fill a RC bug only to stop
migrating a package from stable to testing.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 09:27:17PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
The Policy section detailing the Distribution field in .changes files
specifies that the field may contain a space-separated list of
distributions. Whilst this is technically accurate, the feature has been
deprecated since the
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Colin Watson wrote:
However, I'm not convinced that it is correct to remove this feature
from the *syntax*. While Ubuntu's archive maintenance software doesn't
support it right now, several people have requested it
(https://bugs.launchpad.net/soyuz/+bug/235064). If you're
* Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk [090211 22:30]:
The Policy section detailing the Distribution field in .changes files
specifies that the field may contain a space-separated list of
distributions. Whilst this is technically accurate, the feature has been
deprecated since the testing
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 03:21:28PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Colin Watson wrote:
However, I'm not convinced that it is correct to remove this feature
from the *syntax*. While Ubuntu's archive maintenance software doesn't
support it right now, several people have
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Colin Watson wrote:
In the long term, I would like to move all the documentation about the
syntax into dpkg itself and have the policy document how Debian uses
dpkg rather than documenting dpkg itself.
The mythical dpkg programmer's manual? :-)
We do have quite a lot
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:22:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk writes:
The Policy section detailing the Distribution field in .changes files
specifies that the field may contain a space-separated list of
distributions. Whilst this is technically
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 19:11 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
I agree that dak not currently supporting multiple-distribution upload
is not a reason to change policy about the format of the .changes files,
since this is well supported by dpkg and other tools and can be useful
with other upload
In gmane.linux.debian.devel.policy, you wrote:
I think it's worth mentioning in the policy footnote that the Debian
archive doesn't (well, won't, to be entirely accurate) support the
feature and removing the suggestion that there is a frozen
distribution. As such, I'd be quite happy with
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.1.0
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
The Policy section detailing the Distribution field in .changes files
specifies that the field may contain a space-separated list of
distributions. Whilst this is technically accurate, the feature has been
deprecated since the
Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk writes:
The Policy section detailing the Distribution field in .changes files
specifies that the field may contain a space-separated list of
distributions. Whilst this is technically accurate, the feature has been
deprecated since the testing
27 matches
Mail list logo
