On 11407 March 1977, Russ Allbery wrote:
You make it sound like it's an ASN.1 encoder or something. If Joerg says
that he absolutely won't change dak,
I wont change it.
But I might look at patches changing it (or better, bzr trees ready to
merge), if someone really wants it changed.
Why
May be I'm re-inventing the wheel, if so, please criticize.
I write to the Mail List and not to BTS, may be later I'l make a
post to BTS.
I dislike very much to watch how the admins I'm acquainted with
install perl-modules with the help of the command perl -MCPAN -e
shell, however
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal
For freedesktop.org compliant window managers .desktop files under
/usr/share/applications are considered the preferred method of creating menu
entries, and these entries are what are used for the main menu in these
desktops. The problem is that this
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.3.0
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
after discussing #484570 I think it would be a good idea to
have a policy rule to install configuration files that could
potentially include login credential information with
permissions 0660 instead of forcing admins to check file
On Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:08:00 +0400, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote:
May be I'm re-inventing the wheel, if so, please criticize.
I suspect you're missing the obvious here:
http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/78
Steve
--
# Commercial Debian GNU/Linux Support
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:08:00 +0400, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote:
[cc-ing [EMAIL PROTECTED], please adjust address for replies as
appropriate]
I dislike very much to watch how the admins I'm acquainted with
install perl-modules with the help of the command perl -MCPAN -e
shell, however there's
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Setting user to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (was [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
package debian-policy
Ignoring bugs not assigned to: debian-policy
usertags 479080 discussion
Bug#479080: debian-policy: Policy '3.8 Essential packages' does not
Hi,
On Fri, 02 May 2008 17:45:30 +0200, Carl Fürstenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Policy section 3.8, about essential packages, doesn't explain when/why
essential is neccessary, only that it should not be essential if it's
not necessary.
My understanding is that a package is
Hi,
I think it is time to drop the appendices from the policy manual
proper, and at least put them into a separate document (obsolete dpkg
documentation), or move them into dpkg itself, since these appendices
are not normative, and unmaintained, they should be part of dpkg
extended
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:52:04 -0700, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I thought policy was documenting practice and not the other way
around?
Hm, no, that's not my perception of Policy. New Policy changes should
reflect practice in Debian first
On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:33:38 -0700, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
More relevantly than the total size, IMO (1.8MB isn't really very
much) is that according to popcon, one-seventh of our systems have at
least texlive-base installed. If every texlive-base installation
would benefit
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 06:55:45 -0400, Daniel Dickinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
For freedesktop.org compliant window managers .desktop files under
/usr/share/applications are considered the preferred method of
creating menu entries, and these entries are what are used for the
main menu in
Hi,
We can add it as a recommendation yes. I would hesitate to make
it stronger until we know the number of packages that would be affected
by this policy change.
Would you care to suggest wording for the policy change, along
with the rationale (perhaps distilled out of
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 05:27:47PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:08:00 +0400, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote:
I dislike very much to watch how the admins I'm acquainted with
install perl-modules with the help of the command perl -MCPAN -e
shell, however there's no
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 02 May 2008 17:45:30 +0200, Carl Fürstenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Policy section 3.8, about essential packages, doesn't explain when/why
essential is neccessary, only that it should not be essential if it's
not necessary.
My understanding is
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 06:25:14PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 02 May 2008 17:45:30 +0200, Carl Fürstenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Policy section 3.8, about essential packages, doesn't explain when/why
essential is neccessary, only that it should
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think it is time to drop the appendices from the policy manual
proper, and at least put them into a separate document (obsolete dpkg
documentation), or move them into dpkg itself, since these appendices
are not normative, and
Daniel Dickinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
.desktop files should probably be Debian policy because they are what
the window managers expect and it is a cross-distro standard.
Apart from the concerns that Manoj raised, I also found when trying to
write checks for .desktop files for Lintian that
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 11407 March 1977, Russ Allbery wrote:
You make it sound like it's an ASN.1 encoder or something. If Joerg
says that he absolutely won't change dak,
I wont change it.
But I might look at patches changing it (or better, bzr trees ready to
merge),
Is it sufficient and desirable to lift the file format description
from update-mime(8) and place it into mime-policy.sgml?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Camm,
Would simply documenting the current glibc behavior with regard to
hwcap be sufficient to address your policy proposal?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Perhaps either the FHS can be clarified or Debian should stop using
/var/backups.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We could add all or part of this range to the dynamic
range.
I believe the 2^64-1 reservation suggestion is already covered by the
current wording.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 06:25:14PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 02 May 2008 17:45:30 +0200, Carl Fürstenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Policy section 3.8, about essential packages, doesn't explain when/why
essential is
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.0.0
Severity: important
Justification: doesn't install
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Shouldn't the debian-policy package follow the Debian policy? :-)
# dpkg --configure -a
Setting up debian-policy (3.8.0.0) ...
Adrian von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Shouldn't the debian-policy package follow the Debian policy? :-)
# dpkg --configure -a
Setting up debian-policy (3.8.0.0) ...
/usr/share/doc-base/debian-policy-process: cannot open control file for
reading: No such file or directory
dpkg: error
debian-policy_3.8.0.1_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
debian-policy_3.8.0.1.dsc
debian-policy_3.8.0.1.tar.gz
debian-policy_3.8.0.1_all.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Adrian von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
# dpkg --configure -a
Setting up debian-policy (3.8.0.0) ...
/usr/share/doc-base/debian-policy-process: cannot open control file for
reading: No such file or directory
dpkg: error processing debian-policy (--configure):
subprocess
Accepted:
debian-policy_3.8.0.1.dsc
to pool/main/d/debian-policy/debian-policy_3.8.0.1.dsc
debian-policy_3.8.0.1.tar.gz
to pool/main/d/debian-policy/debian-policy_3.8.0.1.tar.gz
debian-policy_3.8.0.1_all.deb
to pool/main/d/debian-policy/debian-policy_3.8.0.1_all.deb
Override entries for
Your message dated Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:47:03 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#484706: fixed in debian-policy 3.8.0.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #484706,
regarding debian-policy: policy is not policy compliant? Fails in postinst.
to be marked as done.
This means
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
The code in dak, in the current form, is there since 2002-02-13, when
jennifer (today process_unchecked) got added to the repository. Most
probably something similar existed in the code before this.
Its also nearly unchanged since then, with changes being cosmetical.
Nice
31 matches
Mail list logo
