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 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
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 2018-09-04 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 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 2017-10-09 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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, 2009-04-09 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 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
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
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
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,
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
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 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
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 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 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
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
36 matches
Mail list logo
