Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 880920 - patch + pending
Bug #880920 [debian-policy] Document Rules-Requires-Root field
Removed tag(s) patch.
Bug #880920 [debian-policy] Document Rules-Requires-Root field
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please
Sean Whitton:
> [...]
Hi,
Thanks for the updated version. :)
My second also applies to the re-worded variant quoted below
> Here is the complete new diff for seconding. Below that, I've included
> the interdiff between the patch Niels seconded and the new one.
>
>> diff --git
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 07:05:17PM +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Thank you for this analysis.
> My original expectation was that the most common use of the field would
> be of the form
> Build-Indep-Architecture: !amd64
I can't imagine why anyone would ever actually specify this.
A more
Seconded.
On 15-06-18 19:02, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15 2018, Simon McVittie wrote:
>
>> This all seems valid to me, but it's relatively subtle. Perhaps you could
>> clarify this sentence by saying "The gain root command must (blah blah)
>> because it will not necessarily be used by a
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 18:16:47 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > +Specification of architectures on which the architecture-independent
> > > +binary packages are known to be buildable and/or not buildable. If
> > > +this field is not specified, it defaults to ``any``, matching all
> > > +Debian
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 -patch
Bug #846970 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Proposal for a
Build-Indep-Architecture: control file field
Removed tag(s) patch.
--
846970: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=846970
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
control: tag -1 -patch
[CCing those involved in the original discussion, and wanna-build team,
in case they object to my proposal below to just close this bug]
Hello,
On Fri, Jun 15 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Sean Whitton writes ("Bug#846970: Patch to document Build-Indep-Architecture
>
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 18:02:39 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Here is the complete new diff for seconding
Seconded (as below).
smcv
> > diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
> > index 2dea331..b89816e 100644
> > --- a/debian/changelog
> > +++ b/debian/changelog
> > @@ -1,5 +1,11 @@
Sean Whitton writes ("Bug#846970: Patch to document Build-Indep-Architecture
field"):
> > +``Build-Indep-Architecture``
> > +
> > +
> > +Specification of architectures on which the architecture-independent
> > +binary packages are known to be buildable and/or not
[CCing Niels whose second has become invalid -- see interdiff at bottom
of mail]
Hello,
On Fri, Jun 15 2018, Simon McVittie wrote:
> This all seems valid to me, but it's relatively subtle. Perhaps you could
> clarify this sentence by saying "The gain root command must (blah blah)
> because it
Hello,
On Thu, Jun 14 2018, Jess Hall wrote:
> How about "You should not specify that the packages are buildable on
> only one architecture."?
This is better than what I wrote, thanks, Jess.
Here is the updated and rebased patch for seconding:
> policy/ch-controlfields.rst | 27
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 03:35:09PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 13:43:36 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 14 2018, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > >> +This command
> > >> +allows the ``debian/rules`` target to run particular subcommands under
> > >
> > >^^ lintian
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 13:43:36 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14 2018, Paul Gevers wrote:
> >> +This command
> >> +allows the ``debian/rules`` target to run particular subcommands under
> >
> >^^ lintian will tell you this should be "enables"
>
> As a native speaker I find
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 13:06:43 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14 2018, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > I'd suggest replacing SUSv3 with POSIX.1-2017 or SUSv4 2018 edition
> > instead,
>
> Please find a revised patch below; hopefully Gunnar will renew his
> second, and perhaps you'll second
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 787816 + patch
Bug #787816 [debian-policy] Replace FHS 2.3 by FHS 3.0 in the Policy.
Added tag(s) patch.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
787816:
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> unblock 859724 with 567033
Bug #859724 [debhelper] debhelper: please consider using a non-multiarch
libexecdir in new compat levels
859724 was blocked by: 567033 787816
859724 was not blocking any bugs.
Removed blocking bug(s) of 859724: 567033
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 14:37:04 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> There are already 28 /usr/lib/TUPLE/*/bin directories in unstable.
> There are probably other directories with binaries not named bin.
>
> They are candidates for being moved to /usr/libexec, but they should
> probably go to
Hi Sean,
On 15-06-18 14:43, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14 2018, Paul Gevers wrote:
>
>>> + - A space separated list of keywords described below. These must
insert "keywords" here? ^
>>> + always contain a forward slash, which sets them apart
Hello Paul,
On Thu, Jun 14 2018, Paul Gevers wrote:
>> + - A space separated list of keywords described below. These must
>> + always contain a forward slash, which sets them apart from the
>> + other values. When this list is provided, the builder must provide
>
> ^^
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 11:28:11PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 at 22:37:04 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > I assume if we allow /usr/libexec, we also need to support
> > /usr/libexec/x86_64-linux-gnu/ etc. ?
>
> I'm not sure I see why we would? Platforms with the
Hello Simon,
On Thu, Jun 14 2018, Simon McVittie wrote:
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/ has now been replaced
> (see #900882, for which I'm preparing a patch) with POSIX.1-2017, which
> is variously labelled as:
>
> * POSIX.1-2017
> * IEEE Std 1003.1-2017
> * The Open Group
21 matches
Mail list logo
