Bug#949258: debian-policy: Support negated architecture specifications in debian/control Architecture field

On Sat, Sep 09, 2023 at 02:53:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Samuel Thibault writes: > > Architecture: !s390 !s390x > > Architecture: !hppa !hurd-any !kfreebsd-any > > Architecture: linux-any kfreebsd-any !hppa !m68k-any > > which would be understood as [ (linux-any or kfreebsd-any) and not

Bug#1026231: debian-policy: document droppage of support for legacy locales

On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 03:57:17PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 11:47:42AM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > > Preferring to use Unicode does seem to be the direction that all of > > computing is going in, as a simplifying assumption - for example W3C > > advice for HTML is

Bug#1026231: debian-policy: document droppage of support for legacy locales

On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 07:08:09PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 at 19:21:37 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > As of Bookworm, legacy locales are no longer officially supported. > > For clarity, I think when you say "legacy locales" you mean locales &

Bug#1026231: debian-policy: document droppage of support for legacy locales

On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 10:44:12PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > Which raise the question: does the corresponding user group moved to UTF-8 ? > Judging from , > neither Chinese nor Japanese users have overwhelmingly moved to UTF-8, > so it

Bug#1026231: debian-policy: document droppage of support for legacy locales

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.6.1.1 Severity: wishlist Hi! As of Bookworm, legacy locales are no longer officially supported. In order to not break testsuites, they're mostly working if you install locales-all, and you may manually request their generation by editing /etc/locale.gen -- but

Bug#1017446: debian-policy: stress that preinst script that install by using base64 decode on self an elf binary is not a good stuff

On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 08:09:09AM +, roucaries bastien wrote: > Le mar. 16 août 2022 à 13:22, Sam Hartman a écrit : > > > "Bastien" == Bastien Roucariès writes: > > Bastien> I will like to stress that this kind of stuff is bad: > > Bastien> > >

Bug#998063: debian-policy: New virtual package: {default-,}dbus-system-bus

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 11:12:03AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > * dbus, the portable reference implementation > * dbus-broker, a Linux-specific reimplementation > > so it seems like a good time to introduce {default-,}dbus-system-bus > virtual packages, mirroring {default-,}dbus-session-bus. >

Bug#875531: "editor +42 filename" -- accept or reject?

Hi! Now that you folks are dealing with the "editor" virtual package, and, what interests me here, the alternative for /usr/bin/editor -- could you please process this proposal as well, and either accept or close it? My point is that, all but one (e3) current alternatives allow positioning the

Re: Bug#962277: debian-policy: Maintainer address: move away from RFC822 to RFC5322 + RFC6532

On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 03:35:23PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 03:23:11PM +0200, Ansgar wrote: > > There is an updated version (RFC 5322) that should be used instead. > > Notably RFC 5322 is more restrictive on the local part (whitespace and > > escape sequences are no

Bug#941198: please postpone until after the GR

Hi! This idea being discussed hasn't been announced anywhere. And, it's extremely harmful to the support of anything non-systemd, while providing very little if any benefit to systemd users as well. It also would cause doubling of maintainer effort. But, in the light of the ongoing GR, arguing

Bug#917431: debian-policy: virtual packages: logind, default-logind

On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 02:07:25PM +, Sean Whitton wrote: > Ideally, this would be reviewed and seconded by people working on init > stuff, so I'm not going to second it myself unless we don't get interest. I asked around, and got the following remark: Mark Hindley: } Could you just replace

Bug#917431: debian-policy: virtual packages: logind, default-logind

On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 06:28:04PM +, Sean Whitton wrote: > Could you provide an actual diff to be applied to policy.git, please? Sure, what about:? diff --git a/policy/upgrading-checklist.rst b/policy/upgrading-checklist.rst index 679a187..633c14e 100644 --- a/policy/upgrading-checklist.rst

Bug#917431: debian-policy: virtual packages: logind, default-logind

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.3.0.1 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch Hi! As discussed in bug #915407, we'd want a virtual package for logind implementations. At present, two packages implement this functionality: libpam-systemd and libpam-elogind. This has been discussed, including a formal

Bug#881431: proposed wording

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 08:02:48AM -0300, David Bremner wrote: > Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> writes: > > > > Sounds better than mine. I'd re-add "once that package has been accepted > > into the archive", to make it obvious that resubmissions t

Bug#881431: proposed wording

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 03:32:02PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Suggested replacement: > > The part of the version number after the epoch must not be reused for a > version of the package with different contents, even if the version > of the package previously using that part of the

Bug#881431: proposed wording

Control: tags -1 +patch Here's my proposed wording: . §3.2.2. Versions must be unique Because of a quirk of file naming, version numbers that are identical save for epoch cause problems, and thus must not be used. In such case you may bump the Debian revision (it doesn't need to start at

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#875531: debian-policy: please require alternatives to support "editor +42 filename"

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.1.0.0 Severity: wishlist Hi! There's currently no documentation what interface alternatives for /usr/bin/editor are required to implement. I've looked at existing providers, and it looks that the only shared part is: * editor filename * editor +42 filename

Bug#872868: debian-policy: section numbers missing

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.1.0.0 Severity: normal Hi! I'm afraid that the new upload of the policy doesn't include section numbers in the text -- neither in the TOC nor in the body. As that's how we usually refer to parts of the Policy, that makes any such references impossible. Meow!

Bug#872587: debian-policy: please document "Important: yes"

Control: block 872587 by 872589 On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 02:28:22PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18 2017, Adam Borowski wrote: > > Thus, some Policy guidance would be nice. Is it legal to use "Important: > > yes" at this moment? > > It wouldn't be up to

Bug#872587: debian-policy: please document "Important: yes"

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.0.1.0 Severity: wishlist Hi! A couple of packages with "Important: yes" has just hit unstable (mount, fdisk) -- or rather, _would_ hit unstable had dpkg-gencontrol not silently ignored this field. The problem is, this field is currently undocumented and

Bug#758234: Allow packages to depend on packages of lower priority

Control: tags -1 +patch On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 04:44:20PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Adam Borowski wrote: > > > What about this wording?: > Seconded. Tagging as +patch then as a formal proposal. > > Obviously, this also requires changing the "extra"

Bug#758234: proposed wording

What about this wording?: - Packages must not depend on packages with lower priority values (excluding - build-time dependencies). In order to ensure this, the priorities of one - or more packages may need to be adjusted. + Packages' priorities should depend solely on functionality they

Bug#758234: another nasty fallout of this requirement

Hi! Here's a yet another case this obsolete requirement causes problems: #845464 which is a severity:critical issue (somehow filed as "only" serious) -- an unrelated outdated package causes debootstrap to fail. This is nastier than the usual cases, such as leaving a bazillion of gcc-$ANCIENT-base

Bug#758234: it's actively harmful

I'd say this policy is not only not bringing anything good, but is actively harmful. It does cause a data loss: neither we nor the tools know what a package's real priority should be as it's overwritten by the max priority of its dependencies. Problem 1: non-default user wishes debootstrap

Bug#591857: debian-policy: please clarify which of DEB_{BUILD,HOST}_* is which

Package: debian-policy Version: 3.9.1.0 Severity: normal It is utterly non-obvious what the BUILD and HOST architectures mean. Is the latter the build (duh) host, or the target host? Is the former the machine you build _on_ or build _for_? Browsing the relevant documentation (debian-policy, man

Bug#591857: debian-policy: please clarify which of DEB_{BUILD,HOST}_* is which

On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 12:43:28AM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: It is utterly non-obvious what the BUILD and HOST architectures mean. Is the latter the build (duh) host, or the target host? Is the former the machine you build _on_ or build _for_? Browsing the relevant documentation

Re: Bug#508644: mass bugfiling (against 8 packages) and/or new package default-mta

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:51:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 03:42:39PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: But as this would hardcode exim4 as the default MTA for Debian in a number of packages, some better solutions have been proposed in