On Sun, 2012-02-26 at 17:01 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 04:00:11PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Oh, yes, I misunderstood that too. How about:
These maintainer scripts must not call the upstart
prgnstart/prgn, prgnrestart/prgn, prgnreload/prgn, or
On 14.03.2013 17:34, Russ Allbery wrote:
The last time I looked at this (which was several years ago),
diverting
conffiles had enough problems that it was tempting to just say that
it
didn't work reliably. I wonder if we should explicitly recommend
against
diverting conffiles, or if some of
On 04.04.2013 08:23, Philipp Hahn wrote:
According to the lintian description in
http://lintian.debian.org/tags/debian-rules-missing-recommended-target.html
build-arch and build-indep should be added to the paragraph
above as required targets.
The URL you quoted says that the targets are
On 04.04.2013 09:04, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 09:23:07AM +0200, Philipp Hahn wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal
Quoting from
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules
The following targets are required... :
clean,
binary,
On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 12:13 +0200, Dominick Grift wrote:
Let's not compare init scripts with dpkg scripts.
The issue at hand here is that dpkg, and dpkg scripts do not install
files with the correct context.
So far as I can tell, that's very much _not_ the issue at hand. This bug
is precisely
package debian-policy
severity 344158 wishlist
merge 344158 230217
thanks
On Tuesday, December 20, 2005 2:17 PM, Michelle Konzack
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.6.1.1
Severity: normal
Error description:
The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard in
On Friday, March 31, 2006 1:39 PM, Jari Aalto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Section:
8.6.2 How to use dpkg-shlibdeps and the shlibs files
! Put a call to dpkg-shlibdeps into your debian/rules file. If your
package contains only compiled binaries and libraries (but no
scripts), you can
On Friday, June 02, 2006 7:53 AM, Thomas Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...]
Policy's table of contents currently reads:
2.2. Sections
2.2.1. The main category
2.2.2. The contrib category
2.2.3. The non-free category
2.3. Copyright
On Sun, 2007-01-14 at 11:23 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 12:26:15AM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
is there a policy on whether an executable is permitted to update itself? i
personally believe that in order to maintain the security of the system, apt
and apt alone
On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 11:30 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Meike Reichle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When doing my NM I noticed an inconsistency between the Debian Policy
and the Developer's Reference concerning the use of the terms section
and category.
[...]
The control field for
Hi,
Osamu Aoki wrote:
[...]
Dan, I know you are frequent BTS reporter. So I expect you to know
better than newbie reporter. Please do not use bts command for this
kind of situation. Please make sure to get full information to the
package owner. I had to dig into bts web site. This is not
On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 22:40 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
With this patch applied, I think that these bugs are now moot, but I
wanted to check before closing them. Is there any further work required
in britney to treat urgencies as case-insensitive, or does the change in
the log file
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 10:30 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ronny Standtke ronny.stand...@gmx.net writes:
I just noticed that there is a horizontal line in footnote #29 which
probably
does not belong there:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/footnotes.html#f29
Huh, there is indeed,
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
Colin Watson wrote, Thursday, February 12, 2009 10:47 AM
For Debian's archive, I think this change is entirely reasonable.
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
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
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
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, 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
On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 15:10 +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote:
Just a question, how's about update lintian.d.o plan?
Now it complains 3.8.1 is newer policy or so... ;)
There's an update run currently in progress. We were hoping it might
have finished by now, but it isn't quite there yet. Hopefully
package debian-policy
forcemerge 519706 523348
thanks
Hi,
Philipp Huebner wrote:
/usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz still states
policy 3.8.1.0 as unreleased, which is confusing to read while
lintian already complains that 3.8.0 is outdated.
This has already been
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 11:19 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Well, but that doesn't answer the more fundamental question. What does
an Architecture field like:
i386 amd64 all
in a *.dsc file mean? Currently, Policy is silent here.
That the binary packages referenced by the .dsc file
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 14:14 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
Consider this example: the safe printf way to do
echo $BAR
is
printf %s\n $BAR
(in case BAR hold a value like BAR=%s a)
So printf is slightly unwiedly to use and it can create
format string attack.
It does, however, have the
On 2015-01-29 16:55, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Bill Allombert:
[...]
- by apt-get: the pdiff system use ed scripts
which I assume has a dependency on ed.
apt uses an internal implementation.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 20:24 +0200, Pierangelo Mancusi wrote:
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> count_month=4;
The last upload of developers-reference was before you submitted your
translation (of what wasn't even the current version at the time), so
grumbling once a month that it's not been included is
On 2016-07-14 9:22, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:33:00PM +0200, Francesco Poli (wintermute)
wrote:
I found the announce [2] of version 3.9.7.0, but it was apparently
sent to debian-devel@l.d.o, rather than to debian-devel-announce@l.d.o
!
[2]
On Sat, 2016-11-26 at 03:34 +, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> + None of the required targets must attempt to write outside of the
You either mean "The required targets must not attempt" or "None of the
required targets may attempt"; the current wording means "None of the
required targets
On Thu, 2017-01-05 at 23:50 +0530, shirish शिरीष wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.9.8.0
> Tags: patch
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Dear Maintainer,
> As shared in #850171 it would be nice if we have Example section in
> manpages. This would be especially useful for non-technical users and
On 2017-10-09 14:02, Paul Hardy wrote:
I gave unifont 1:10.0.04-1 an urgency of low, and yet it migrated to
testing after 5 days. That was in July. I have only used
"urgency=medium" since then. It sounds like whatever happened was
temporary.
Ah. Looking at that a bit further, that was due
On Sat, 2017-10-14 at 11:30 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> control: tag -1 +moreinfo
>
> Hello Ralf,
>
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 06:51:49PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > section 10.4 says:
> >
> > Scripts may assume that /bin/sh implements the SUSv3 Shell
> > Command
> > Language ...
> >
>
On 2017-10-08 23:51, Paul Hardy wrote:
Section 5.13.2: low priority packages no longer wait 10 days to
migrate to testing; they wait 5 days now. If this is a permanent
change, I would update this section.
What makes you think that? The live configuration for britney has:
MINDAYS_LOW =
On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 18:42 +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Short answer (slightly drunk and short on time), more later:
>
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > In some packages this will not be possible at least for some bug
> > reports. You've seen the poor quality and
On 2018-10-12 10:16, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 01:04:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Andrey Rahmatullin writes ("Bug#910783: Remove doc-base
recommendation"):
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.2.1.2
> Severity: normal
>
> It seems to me that the consensus is that
On 2018-09-04 03:52, Paul Hardy wrote:
With Debian presenting itself as a distribution suitable for children
in educational environments, please consider removing the "f-bombs" in
this package. As a fundamental document in Debian, it is something
that should be acceptable for school children to
On Sun, 2018-09-16 at 14:01 +0530, Jaikumar Sharma wrote:
> debian-policy has typo under section 3.4 The description of the
> package page no.15 and line number 16 has following text which needs
> improvement in spelling of 'administratrivia' .
> ** text from policy**
> Copyright statements and
36 matches
Mail list logo