Bug#459427: changelog vs. NEWS handling

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 09:37:32PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > This is okay 80% of the time and badly needs manual editing the remaining > 20% of the time. I personally would never be willing to forgo good > changelogs in that remaining 20% of the time that can't really be handled > with commit

Bug#459427: changelog vs. NEWS handling

Josh Triplett writes: > I *do* use apt-listchanges to reach changelogs, and I'm not advocating > that they not exist; I'm simply arguing that they make it a pain to keep > a Debian package in git, and that we ought to autogenerate them from git > log and some care taken in

Bug#459427: changelog vs. NEWS handling

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 08:50:11PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Jonathan Nieder writes: > >> I would go so far as to say that I hope we one day stop shipping a > >> non-generated debian/changelog in source packages, because it incurs > >> all the same pain. > > > I've been

Re: Automatic downloading of non-free software by stuff in main

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 01:52:18PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Over the years, d-legal has discussed a number of packages which > automatically download non-free software, under some circumstances. > > The obvious example is web browsers with extension repositories > containing both free and

Bug#459427: changelog vs. NEWS handling

Hello Jonathan, On Thu, Nov 30 2017, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > I've been trying to make debian/changelog in packages I work on > user-focused, and no one has complained yet. > > I also use NEWS.Debian for notes about incompatibilities that will > affect sysadmins upgrading. Yes. If you read the

Bug#614807: debian-policy: Please document autobuilder-imposed build-dependency alternative restrictions

Hello Jonathan, On Thu, Nov 30 2017, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Thanks. As a followup, I'm a little confused at what I think is a > wording issue: > >> + To avoid >> + inconsistency between repeated builds of a package, the >> + autobuilders will default to selecting the first alternative, after

Bug#883233: First footnote to section 7.1 should say which of Debian's autobuilders ignore alternative dependencies

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.1.2.0 Severity: normal User: debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Usertags: informative On Thu, Nov 30 2017, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote: > Should [section 7.1, footnote 1] also make explicit which Debian > suites have this restriction? > > I thought this rule also

Bug#614807: debian-policy: Please document autobuilder-imposed build-dependency alternative restrictions

Jonathan Nieder writes: > This means if I write > Build-Depends: a | b > then it will always use 'a', regardless of the release, right? If 'a' is not installable, I thought it would then install 'b', but perhaps I'm wrong about how the buildds work? If 'b' is

Bug#459427: changelog vs. NEWS handling

Jonathan Nieder writes: > How do you feel about generated changelogs in release tarballs that > are generated by tools like "git log"? I think they're a waste of space and effort. The circumstances in which those are useful are so obscure that I think more harm than good is

Bug#459427: changelog vs. NEWS handling

Bill Allombert writes: > git log might be more useful in some situation and extremly inconvenient > in some others (to start with it require network access and cloning the > full project history). A complete changelog is often an appreciable percentage of the size of that

Bug#614807: debian-policy: Please document autobuilder-imposed build-dependency alternative restrictions

Hi, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30 2017, Simon McVittie wrote: >> Other than that, seconded. I'm not sure whether this is necessarily >> how the autobuilders *should* work, but there's value in documenting >> how the autobuilders *do* work. > > Thank you for reviewing this bug. > > Since

Bug#459427: changelog vs. NEWS handling

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 06:56:53PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 00:04:20 +0100 Bill Allombert > > wrote: > > >> The fact that some upstream do not bother to ship useful changelog does > >> not mean that all changelog are

Bug#459427: changelog vs. NEWS handling

Josh Triplett wrote: > On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 00:04:20 +0100 Bill Allombert wrote: >> The fact that some upstream do not bother to ship useful changelog does >> not mean that all changelog are useless, and by removing them we >> discourage upstream of producing useful changelog.

Bug#459427: changelog vs. NEWS handling

On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 00:04:20 +0100 Bill Allombert wrote: > Both the content and the name of the upstream changelogs is an upstream > issue. The fact that a file is named by upstream Changelog instead of > NEWS does not imply anything on its usefulness. It might even happen >

Bug#459427: changelog vs. NEWS handling

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:01:08PM -0500, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > As others have said, running 'git log' is far more useful than a > complete changelog and in my experience, most projects these days > outside of GNU don't bother shipping changelogs. > > Most of my Debian and Ubuntu work involves

debian-policy_4.1.2.0_multi.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:23:05 -0700 Source: debian-policy Binary: debian-policy Architecture: all source Version: 4.1.2.0 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian Policy List

Processing of debian-policy_4.1.2.0_multi.changes

debian-policy_4.1.2.0_multi.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: debian-policy_4.1.2.0.dsc debian-policy_4.1.2.0.tar.xz debian-policy_4.1.2.0_all.deb debian-policy_4.1.2.0_amd64.buildinfo Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host

Bug#882445: marked as done (Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive)

Your message dated Thu, 30 Nov 2017 22:49:07 + with message-id and subject line Bug#882445: fixed in debian-policy 4.1.2.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #882445, regarding Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive to be marked as done. This

Bug#636383: marked as done (debian-policy: 10.2 and others: private libraries may also be multi-arch-ified)

Your message dated Thu, 30 Nov 2017 22:49:07 + with message-id and subject line Bug#636383: fixed in debian-policy 4.1.2.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #636383, regarding debian-policy: 10.2 and others: private libraries may also be multi-arch-ified

Bug#878523: marked as done (debian-policy: [PATCH] Spelling fixes)

Your message dated Thu, 30 Nov 2017 22:49:07 + with message-id and subject line Bug#878523: fixed in debian-policy 4.1.2.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #878523, regarding debian-policy: [PATCH] Spelling fixes to be marked as done. This means that you

Bug#683495: marked as done (perl scripts: "#!/usr/bin/perl" MUST or SHOULD?)

Your message dated Thu, 30 Nov 2017 22:49:07 + with message-id and subject line Bug#683495: fixed in debian-policy 4.1.2.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #683495, regarding perl scripts: "#!/usr/bin/perl" MUST or SHOULD? to be marked as done. This means

Bug#614807: marked as done (debian-policy: Please document autobuilder-imposed build-dependency alternative restrictions)

Your message dated Thu, 30 Nov 2017 22:49:07 + with message-id and subject line Bug#614807: fixed in debian-policy 4.1.2.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #614807, regarding debian-policy: Please document autobuilder-imposed build-dependency alternative

Bug#877674: marked as done ([debian-policy] update links to the pdf and other formats of the documentation)

Your message dated Thu, 30 Nov 2017 22:49:07 + with message-id and subject line Bug#877674: fixed in debian-policy 4.1.2.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #877674, regarding [debian-policy] update links to the pdf and other formats of the documentation

Bug#614807: debian-policy: Please document autobuilder-imposed build-dependency alternative restrictions

Should this also make explicit which Debian suites have this restriction? I thought this rule also applied to backports having found [0] in a list archive search, and hence have been explicitly changing dependencies for backports [1] instead of using alternatives. However after finding this

Bug#786470: debian-policy: [copyright-format] Add an optional “License-Grant” field

Hello Simon, On Thu, Nov 30 2017, Simon McVittie wrote: > I assume a normative change to the available fields, and to the > meaning of License, would make this be copyright format 1.1? I spoke to Russ about this and I think we want to avoid bumping the version number unless we make an

Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive [and 1 more messages]

control: tag -1 -patch +pending Hello Ian, On Thu, Nov 30 2017, Ian Jackson wrote: >> Is this a proposal/seconding of the modified patch? > > Sure. Thanks for confirming that. > Thanks for keeping on top of this. > > But, I guess you already know that I think that this is excessive >

Processed: Re: Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive [and 1 more messages]

Processing control commands: > tag -1 -patch +pending Bug #882445 [debian-policy] Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive Removed tag(s) patch. Bug #882445 [debian-policy] Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive Added tag(s) pending. -- 882445:

Bug#614807: debian-policy: Please document autobuilder-imposed build-dependency alternative restrictions

control: tag -1 +pending Hello Simon, On Thu, Nov 30 2017, Simon McVittie wrote: > 6½ years later, ideally this would mention Build-Depends-Arch too. > > Other than that, seconded. I'm not sure whether this is necessarily > how the autobuilders *should* work, but there's value in documenting >

Processed: Re: Bug#614807: debian-policy: Please document autobuilder-imposed build-dependency alternative restrictions

Processing control commands: > tag -1 +pending Bug #614807 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Please document autobuilder-imposed build-dependency alternative restrictions Added tag(s) pending. -- 614807: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=614807 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, tagging 636383

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was spwhit...@spwhitton.name). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit

Re: Automatic downloading of non-free software by stuff in main

Ian Jackson wrote: > If there is a core implementation needed (eg a library which parses a > standard config location or soemthing), I expect to to write it. I sincerely hope we can avoid needing to develop some new infrastructure or library here, since any such mechanism would almost certainly

Re: Automatic downloading of non-free software by stuff in main

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 06:54:32PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Josh Triplett writes ("Re: Automatic downloading of non-free software by > stuff in main"): > > - Packages in main must not point the user to specific non-free or > > contrib software and recommend its installation, > > I agree

Re: Automatic downloading of non-free software by stuff in main

Josh Triplett writes ("Re: Automatic downloading of non-free software by stuff in main"): > - Packages in main must not point the user to specific non-free or > contrib software and recommend its installation, I agree with this as a goal for at least some configuration settings. I'm basically

Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive [and 1 more messages]

Sean Whitton writes ("Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive [and 1 more messages]"): > On Thu, Nov 23 2017, Ian Jackson wrote: > > I'm not wedded to this second half of the sentence. > > Is this a proposal/seconding of the modified patch? Sure. > This bug needs one

Re: Automatic downloading of non-free software by stuff in main

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 06:40:46PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > I would like to establish a way to prevent this. > > Why would the project do that, though? > > Because... > > > > We should aim for most of the changes necessary for > > > such derivatives to be in Debian proper, so the

Re: Automatic downloading of non-free software by stuff in main

(dropping the profligacy of lists) Andrey Rahmatullin writes ("Re: Automatic downloading of non-free software by stuff in main"): > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 01:52:18PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > I would like to establish a way to prevent this. > Why would the project do that, though?

Re: Automatic downloading of non-free software by stuff in main

Ian Jackson wrote: > Over the years, d-legal has discussed a number of packages which > automatically download non-free software, under some circumstances. > > The obvious example is web browsers with extension repositories > containing both free and non-free software. > > We have also recently

Bug#683495: Mandating use of /usr/bin/perl in Policy

On Saturday, 14 October 2017 11:49:59 CET Sean Whitton wrote: > I am seeking seconds for the following patch to close this bug, which I > think is uncontroversial at this point. > > > @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ All command scripts, including the package maintainer > > scripts inside the package and used

Re: Automatic downloading of non-free software by stuff in main

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 01:52:18PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > I would like to establish a way to prevent this. Why would the project do that, though? > (There are even whole Debian derivatives who have as one of their > primary goals, preventing this. Good. > We should aim for most of the

Automatic downloading of non-free software by stuff in main

This mail is going to a lot of lists. I have set the followups to d-policy because ultimately this is hopefully going to result in a change to policy. Over the years, d-legal has discussed a number of packages which automatically download non-free software, under some circumstances. The

Bug#786470: debian-policy: [copyright-format] Add an optional “License-Grant” field

I think the License-Grant field is a useful addition to the format, resolving some issues around whether License is meant to be the license, the license grant or both, and I would like to be able to start using it. I assume a normative change to the available fields, and to the meaning of

Bug#614807: debian-policy: Please document autobuilder-imposed build-dependency alternative restrictions

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 at 14:21:13 +0100, Sean Finney wrote: > The Debian autobuilders only make use of the first alternative > in a set of alternatives, in order to guarantee consistent, > reproducible builds. This does not include architecture > restrictions, because architecture reduction takes

Bug#636383: debian-policy: 10.2 and others: private libraries may also be multi-arch-ified

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 at 16:04:17 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Shared object files (often .so files) that are not > public libraries, that is, they are not meant to be linked > to by third party executables (binaries of other packages), > - should be installed in