Package: policy
Severity: normal
Policy says:
12.5 Copyright information
Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its
copyright and distribution license in the file
/usr/share/doc/package/copyright. This file must neither be
compressed nor be a symbolic link.
In addition,
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal
Hi,
the current use and definition of Build-Depends/Conflicts[-Indep] in
policy 7.6 don't match. Both use and definition also greatly reduce
the usefullness of these fields. This issue has come up again and
again over the last few years and nothing has
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal
Policy currently reads:
| 8.2 Run-time support programs
|
| If your package has some run-time support programs which use the
| shared library you must not put them in the shared library
| package. If you do that then you won't be able to install several
|
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal
Hi,
Section '5.4 Debian source control files -- .dsc' of the policy lists
the Format field as optional while the DAK rejects files without it.
I suggest marking the Format field as mandatory to reflect this
behaviour.
MfG
Goswin
-- System
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.6.1.0
Severity: normal
Hi,
there seems to be no conclusive specification on the format of a deb
package anywhere. The only information is in man deb and thats
rather unspecific just saying its an ar archive (ar archive can have a
number of slightly different
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.6.1.0
Severity: normal
Hi,
again someone asks for what to do about gcc 2.95-3.2 transition and
the right place would be to point to the debian-policy package just as
with the libc6 transition.
Please include
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
I have a number of serious technical objections to this.
Saying all I mean in one sentence:
I don't want to change one bit of what is done, but when.
goswin == goswin brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
goswin Installation (apart
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.1.1.1
Severity: normal
Could we please raise the minimum Standards-Version required for
woody to include Build-Depends.
May the Source be with you.
Goswin
-- System Information
Debian Release: 2.2
Architecture: alpha
Kernel: Linux alpha
Package: packaging-manual
Version: 3.1.1.1
Whats Build-Depends-Indep for anyway?
May the Source be with you.
Goswin
-- System Information
Debian Release: 2.2
Architecture: alpha
Kernel: Linux alpha 2.2.14 #4 Sun Jun 19 11:41:46 CEST 2005 alpha
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.1.1.1
Severity: normal
*** explain.txt
I compiled all packages that have no Build-Depends in potato/main/Sources.gz.
Your package failed to build together with about 1700 other packages.
Since you have no Build-Depends you eigther forgot that your package
Installation (apart from configuration) should become absolutly
non-interactive. Stopping the unpacking of setting up of packages just
because of one package needing the users interaction is anyoing.
At the moment Policy encourages the package to display important
information and request the user
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The second thing is that such information should be collected during
install and be displayed in one chunk afterwards (in a series of
debconf requesters?).
Actually, debconf allows such things to be shown _before_ install.
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you give me an idea that is probably hard to do but would be
great. What if debconf had a postpone button.
It does. See the mail this to me button on the slang frontend.
Loks like I need to install a fresh system.
The
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Mays) writes:
Policy says that any binary must come with a manpage. I would like to
have the same for packages.
For every package? You must be kidding!!
I just looked for a parser generator that outputs C++ code and found
pccts. After installation I tried
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.1.1.0
Severity: wishlist
Policy says that any binary must come with a manpage. I would like to have
the same for packages.
I just looked for a parser generator that outputs C++ code and found pccts.
After installation I tried man pccts, but that failed.
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.1.1.0
Severity: wishlist
Policy says that any binary must come with a manpage. I would like to have
the same for packages.
I just looked for a parser generator that outputs C++ code and found pccts.
After installation I tried man pccts, but that failed.
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 11:23:24PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Chris Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You would need a switch case statement that tests for all possible
formats that might be allowed.
Having an uncompress.sh the procedure
Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, I've just tried to calculate the build-time dependencies for
debian-policy, and here are some thoughts.
It's not easy. In fact it's *really* not easy.
I first tried running strace on the build process, but due to the
presence of a vfork, I
Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given that there are now two sorts of depends, I am changing the
paragraph:
Packages may not depend on packages with lower priority values. If
this should happen, one of the priority values will have to be
adapted.
to read:
Binary
Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Given that there are now two sorts of depends, I am changing the
paragraph:
Packages may not depend on packages with lower priority values. If
this should happen, one of the priority
Chris Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 21 Oct 1999, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Of cause policy should encourage to use bzip2 (or gzip if smaller) and
base packages must use tar.gz (or tar.bz2 if bzip2 is in base) so
that one can update debian. Any package using a non default
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Why not pipe it through uncompress.sh as and if present in the
control.tar.gz?
Why not change to using the shar archive format for our packages?
Because it's overly complicated, and unnecessary.
Whats complicated about using
Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why change?
Would it be OK for the source of mount to depend on ssh? (just a realy
extreme example)
No: ssh is not in main (it's in non-US/non-free at present, although
it may well end up in non-US/main very soon). See policy 2.1.2 for
the
.
---
In original form, this proposal was seconded by Goswin Brederlow.
Unfortunetly I can´t second the proposal, because I´m not a maintainer
yet, but I´m all for it.
May the Source be with you.
Goswin
Great. The first step towards a smaller mirror. Can´t wait for this to
become mainstream and a new X and tex release. Should free a
noticeable amount of space.
May the Source be with you.
Goswin
I saw several discussions and proposals about using bzip2 to compress
instead of gzip to reduce the overal size of Debian.
I am strongly for allowing bzip2 compression into debs and strongly
against forcing it. Also I am against the way how compression is done
at the moment, so heres my
Edward Betts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gordon Matzigkeit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you have any tangible examples of an architecture-specific example
file? Maybe I haven't been following this thread closely enough,
because I've only seen discussion of ``what-if'' scenarios.
$ ls -l
Shouldn´t packages use sensible-editor?
May the Source be with you.
Goswin
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Whatever happened to the idea of having pools of package
(presented by aj)? The idea was that packages always be uploaded to
an unstable ``pool'' of packages. After meeting vertain criteria
(minimuym time in unstable with no bugs, or no
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Mon, Aug 16, 1999 at 12:44:34PM -0400, Justin Wells wrote:
May I summarise your proposal briefly?
* You want statically linked recovery stuff to be standard.
* You mainly want this so you can recover from your own mistakes
From: Stefan Gybas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, as Roman pointed out: lprng provides lpr but some package (I
don't remember which one it was) needs the real lpr to build, so you
can't just say Build-Depends: lpr.
Does it run with lprng but only build with the real lpr? If so, its a
bug, that it
From: Roman Hodek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does it run with lprng but only build with the real lpr? If so, its
a bug, that it doesn't compile and should be fixed. If it doesn't
run or compile with lprng, it should depend on the real lpr.
I don't know if it runs with lprng But in any way, it
Norbert Nemec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do not talk about where packages should get their configuration
information from, I did talk about what they do, if they do not have the
information necessary. (And even with he perfect autoconfig system, there
will be stuations when the packages lack
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
As an example, what would happen to netbase's postinst questions and
comments? It currently warns about stopping the portmapper (and thus
possibly doing horrible things to any rpc processes, such as NFS), it
asks if you want to add some IPv6
Jim Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...
If that where so easy
Is there any automatik mechanism to register the aplications? A web
page where one can input once email and see the status of once
apllication or even a plain list of recieved aplliactions?
They use a human beowulf
Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...
--- 7,10
umask 002
test -x /usr/bin/check-sendfile /usr/bin/check-sendfile || /bin/true
+ test -f /usr/local/etc/profile . /usr/local/etc/profile
Eeks, no! There's no such directory as /usr/local/etc. /etc is for
Davide G. M. Salvetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* MS = Manoj Srivastava
Hi Manoj,
...
As you see, this whole issue stems from this one question: «What do
you want Debian to be?».
MS What if it is true? What if the non-free software does indeed
MS provide functionality missing in
Francesco Tapparo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The documentation is a better place for this sort of things.
From the packaging manual:
`Suggests'
This is used to declare that one package may be more useful with
one or more others. Using this field tells the packaging
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...
Yes, I argued exactly the same point when this thread came up before
(on -private, where it never belonged, imo). But note that both of
the proposals I mentioned would solve this quite handily -- the
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 14-Jun-99, 02:06 (CDT), Brock Rozen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 1999 at 12:22, Joseph Carter wrote about Re: Editor and...:
#!/bin/bash
shopt -s execfail
exec ${VISUAL:-${EDITOR:-editor}} $@
Yes, I saw this. But I didn't
Shaleh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Agreed. And again, this is not personal, just Debian must retain control.
Any
interested in being a part of this can simply apply for maintainer status.
If that where so easy
Is there any automatik mechanism to
Davide G. M. Salvetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* JL = Jim Lynch
software. This means, IMHO, that free packages should not reference
non-free packages in the Debian sense (i.e., suggests, recommends, and
depends).
So every Package that uses gif would be depreciated, like gimp. It
works
Brock Rozen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 13 Jun 1999 at 14:19, Chris Waters wrote about Re: Editor and...:
One works under Debian, the other doesn't. While pico isn't part of
Debian, there is a package available and I still use it. While that is of
no interest to you, it makes a whole lot
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would rather not see bzip2 be mandatory, but I would like to see it be
possible for things like the X sources and other things which truly
benefit. This requires alterations to dpkg and I would suggest that
before this can become policy you're going
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 03-Jun-99, 09:26 (CDT), Goswin Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe we could rename sensible-editor to editor. I just hate having
two things make the same.
editor could be removed and sensible-editor would be renamed to editor
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A few additional rules for your consideration:
- The data directory shouldn't be synced to debian releases, and ought
to be paralled to dists, not main/contrib/non-free.
(Since there are no executables, what's the benefit of syncing it, with
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Branden Robinson wrote:
If I understood the proposal correctly, bible-kjv and verse would both go
into the new data section. verse because it's designed to work only with
only one data file -- bible-kjv.
That's silly. 'passwd' is a program designed
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 02-Jun-99, 06:22 (CDT), Goswin Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Goswin, you're absolutely correct. The only issue is that for programs
which already have 'if (ed=getenv(EDITOR)) system(ed); else
system(editor)' or somesuch will need a Debian
Edward Betts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, I forsee a long battle about which editors make into sensible
editor, and all kinds of fall-back issues. And is it really that big a
deal if a console editor gets brought up during an X session -- because
most uses of $EDITOR occur while
Laurent Martelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin == Goswin Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin - Allow for automatic, non-interactive installation -
Goswin Variable amount of questions depending on the users
Goswin experience
It think it would cool if questions were asked
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The configure script must be a bash script, but not everything allowed
in bash is allowed there.
Excuse my ignorance... Is this for postinst scripts or
Thats for the configure scripts in the controll.tar.gz. The postinst
scripts must not change
Policy states that programms should use $EDITOR if set and else use
editor as the prefered editor, but why not just use sensible-editor?
sensible-editor will behave as needed by the current policy, but is
more flexible. It could start xemacs on X and zile on console or do
other additional checks.
.
Under developement.
dpkg-menu-java Parse configure files an present a java driven
X gui.
Planned.
May the Source be with you.
Goswin Brederlow
PS: A debian package including the first releas
Torsten Landschoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...
While I like to overall idea there are some problems with your proposal. This
utility you suggested would work just fine but it has a few issues for future
extensions. For example I dream of a Debian installation which asks the
configure
How exactly do you make a formal policy proposal? I had a look at the
policy and couldn't find a chapter describing it. Is that in a
different file?
May the Source be with you.
Goswin
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
Goswin == Goswin Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This also has more complicated issues than just generating md5sums (find
| xargs will do that for you). In particular making sure your list of
md5sums isn't equally vulnerable as your
Michael Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 25, 1999 at 04:42:13PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Putting things in the packaging system so that we can be sure
they have it in the system is really silly, seeing that we have this
marvelous dependency mechanism.
Maybe,
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is a pregenerated du file necessary? You already assume that you have
the package at hand, so you might as well collect size information from
the package directly. That way, you can also handle differences in block
sizes. And it means that you
Amos Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[1 text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)]
From: Massimo Dal Zotto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PROPOSAL: automatic installation and configuration
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 00:01:57 +0200 (MEST)
Hi,
I have done a few experiments about automatic configuration
Heres my two pence worth of garbage:
1. If each package had a md5sum file, one could verify the space
requirements before installing a package.
2. md5sum files in the package could be signed. (secure)
3. After configuration new md5sums can be generated and signed (for
security)
With
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
[1 text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)]
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 11:57:54AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
1. If each package had a md5sum file, one could verify the space
requirements before installing a package.
Huh? .md5sums don't have any size
61 matches
Mail list logo
