On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 22:14:10 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Hello. This is an attempt to put the basis for fixing this bug:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=837060
>
> As an example, packages tzdata, mount or e2fsprogs are not build-essential
> and afaik have not been
On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 09:44:25PM +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> Policy section 11.8.5, point 1 says
>
> > If one or more of the fonts so packaged are necessary for proper
> > operation of the package with which they are associated the font
> > package may be Recommended; if the fonts merely
On 2/16/19 7:08 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Friday, February 15, 2019 08:59:41 PM Sean Whitton wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Use of the Build-Conflicts field is currently mostly optional, but Ian
>> Jackson and I have been working on text for Debian Policy that would
>> require its use in certain
On 11/14/18 9:07 AM, Angus Lees wrote:
> Suggestions welcome - I imagine this is not a unique situation. I think
> our options are:
> - no rust-gdb manpage at all
> - a .so stub or symlink to gdb.1 (current situation)
> - a manually-created stub manpage that just refers the reader to
>
On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 12:41:48 +0200, Gioele Barabucci wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
>
> Hello,
>
> the policy lacks guidelines on how to treat user-provided configuration
> files during configuration purging in packages for programs that follow the
> "stateless" paradigm (default in
On 08/04/2018 07:14 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Sean Whitton writes ("Beginnings of a patch to add netbase to
> build-essential"):
>> Ian also thinks that package builds should be able to access the
>> information normally contained in /etc/protocols and /etc/services by
>> means of the C standard
On 07/23/2018 04:45 AM, Sean Whitton wrote:
> control: tag -1 +patch
>
> Hello,
>
> Seeking seconds:
>
> diff --git a/policy/ch-relationships.rst b/policy/ch-relationships.rst
> index 1eaa422..03f5918 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-relationships.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-relationships.rst
> @@ -228,6
Control: tag -1 - patch
On 02/16/2017 07:44 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Package: developers-reference
> Version: 3.4.18
> Severity: normal
> Control: tags -1 patch
> Control: affects -1 devscripts
>
This bug doesn't seem to actually include a patch.
Cheers,
Julien
On 07/03/2018 11:56 AM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> How about the attached patch?
>
> Complete patch series (including non-normative) updated here:
> https://salsa.debian.org/smcv/policy/merge_requests/1/diffs
> Seconded.
Cheers,
Julien
On 06/15/2018 02:06 PM, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Patch:
>
>> diff --git a/policy/ch-files.rst b/policy/ch-files.rst
>> index 90ae58a..f31a3b4 100644
>> --- a/policy/ch-files.rst
>> +++ b/policy/ch-files.rst
>> @@ -203,9 +203,9 @@ may instead be easier to check the exit status of
>> commands
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 15:33:53 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> >The relations allowed are ‘<<’, ‘<=’, ‘=’, ‘>=’ and ‘>>’ for strictly
> >earlier, earlier or equal, exactly equal, later or equal and strictly
> >later, respectively. The deprecated forms ‘<’ and ‘>’ were confusingly
> >used to mean
On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 23:23:22 +, Anthony Fok wrote:
> This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script.
>
> foka pushed a commit to branch master
> in repository developers-reference.
>
> commit ab0b6f45b3eb561da0a25bb4a2f444ce0b410759
> Author: Anthony Fok
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:06:50 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I suggest to change
>
> | If there are development files associated with a shared
> | library, the source package needs to generate a binary
> | development package named librarynamesoversion-dev, or if you
> | prefer
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
for some time I've been uploading packages with Maintainer set to a
mailing list and no Uploaders field. In cases where some package kind
of fit within a team, but noone cares specifically about that individual
package, I feel it's better than
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 22:30:10 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:57:27PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 21:54:29 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:10:31PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 21:54:29 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:10:31PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > for some time I've been uploading packages wi
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 22:17:33 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> I think Debian Policy should consider relaxing the "should" in §11.11
> (btw, is that normative even when written in lowercase?).
>
Debian Policy doesn't use RFC's uppercase SHOULD/MUST/MAY anywhere...
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 20:45:43 +0200, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
But policy says that there should be such a copyright file. Violating such
a clause is at least an important bug.
It's *at most* an important bug:
These classifications are roughly equivalent to the bug severities
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 18:09:16 +0200, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015, Julien Cristau wrote:
FWIW I disagree with this change, I don't think making a new requirement
for source packages is the way to solve NEW review workflow.
Oh, lintian already complains about a missing
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:44:10 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Dear Santiago and everybody,
how about the following ? (in section 4.5)
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -1822,12 +1822,16 @@ zope.
sect id=dpkgcopyright
headingCopyright:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 20:47:08 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sat, Aug 08, 2015 at 08:12:28AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
I think that the mention of quinn-diff can be removed from the Developer's
Reference. This can be done in two ways.
- Remove §A.7.1 on quinn-diff. Then
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 13:16:24 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
Hi!
On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 11:34:20 +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
Lintian now detect script creating user pointing to /home.
After a chat under #debian-qa it
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 13:48:14 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Policy §5.6.12 reads: “The upstream_version may contain only alphanumerics
and the characters ‘.’ ‘+’ ‘-’ ‘:’ ‘~’ (full stop, plus, hyphen, colon,
tilde) and should start with a digit. […]
On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 23:38:24 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 12:28:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Bill Allombert ballo...@debian.org writes:
+ tag4294967294:/tag
+ item
+ p
+ tt(uid_t)(-2) == (gid_t)(-2)/tt emmust
+
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 23:53:46 +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
Even example.org is not safe because registered could be possible to
add a footnote
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to say above.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 18:39:20 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
So, I propse adding to the list of exceptions in policy section 9.1.1:
The FHS requirement that architecture-independent application-specific
static files be located in /usr/share is relaxed to a suggestion.
In particular,
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:45:48 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 2708242..90ae9fe 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -7021,15 +7021,14 @@ Built-Using: grub2 (= 1.99-9), loadlin (= 1.6e-1)
stable release of Debian supports
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 08:00:55 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
does the current patch (attached) address your concerns ? If yes, would
you second it ?
Sorry, I don't feel confident to second anything trigger-related.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 09:27:19 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
About the problem of triggers being called with Depends not satisfied, can
you
give more explanations or suggest some text for the warning ? Would it be
enough to add a
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 11:26:01 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:09:17AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
On Sun, 12 May 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
I also added through the ttinterst/tt or ttactivate/tt
directives
after When a configured package activates
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 20:53:28 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
Hi,
There's been quite some confusion lately over the right version scheme for
uploads to stable(-security), and it doesn't help that the devref's advice
is not currently correct.
Can you please apply attached patch swiftly?
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 22:18:09 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
Package: developers-reference
Tags: patch
Hi,
Attached patch updates the developer's reference to advise people to use
wheezy-security and the likes for security updates, not
stable-security.
Applied, thanks.
Cheers,
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 18:01:48 -0400, David Prévot wrote:
As discussed on #d-release, the version scheme advice could be improved,
so should the distribution declared in changelog, for the testing and
{old,}stable upload (including the -security ones), in order to have
only one scheme to
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 10:51:45 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
tag 701081 patch
thanks
Dear all,
I think that it emerges from the discussion that there are good uses of
Unicode, and that somebody would need to step up and ensure that a dozen of
packages are corrected if we were to
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 14:25:12 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Okay, once more for the win. Here is the current version of the patch,
incorporating substantial improvements from Jonathan Nieder and hopefully
incorporating all the feedback in subsequent discussion.
I'm looking for seconds so
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 15:31:52 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Could someone who has the time to put together a script for this check to
see whether this is actually true? (Namely, that the only thing in
required are essential packages and their dependencies.)
As far as I can tell the
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 21:23:47 +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
reopen 662649
reassign 662649 debian-policy
thanks
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 08:03:55PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012, Guus Sliepen wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 6.7
Severity: wishlist
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 18:01:52 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I would like to know people's feeling about this.
Seeing how you're about the only one in favour of removing the policy
should, I'm not sure why you think raising it to tech-ctte will change
that.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 23:10:46 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
How should packages behave if there is no explicit parallel=N in
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS? I saw two different approaches:
1) Behave (roughly) like if parallel=1 was set.
2) Be clever and try
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 17:26:04 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
These dependencies must be added to the binary
package when it is built, since they may change
This means packages must not hard-code library dependencies. It
also seems like good policy, but I
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 18:51:10 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Lintian suggests the following command to determine correct name for a shared
library package:
objdump -p /path/to/libfoo-bar.so.1.2.3 | sed -n
-e's/^[[:space:]]*SONAME[[:space:]]*//p' |
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 08:32:55 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index c1ff4b4..0f1dbf9 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -4628,7 +4628,7 @@ Depends: libc6 (= 2.2.1), exim | mail-transport-agent
Relationships may be restricted to a
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:00:14 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
Would lockuser need to be in the adduser package? Given that
adduser is only priority:important, it's not guaranteed to be present
when postrm is run, so the operation could fail. Maybe passwd is a
better place for it, given that it
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 13:49:53 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Currently, section 9.1.1 relaxes the FHS requirement that /lib64 and
/usr/lib64 be used, but it doesn't prohibit installing files in that
location. However, due to the way Debian handles this (with symlinks),
bad things happen in
Full quoting because you didn't cc the policy list when reassigning...
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 05:03:47 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
reassign 620566 debian-policy
severity 620566 normal
tags 620566 patch
retitle 620566 Sync upstream version format with what dpkg accepts now
thanks
On Sat,
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 22:17:32 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
If I had to make a proposal, I'd suggest maxima of
_XOPEN_PATH_MAX / 2 (= 512) for paths, to leave room for chroots
_XOPEN_NAME_MAX - 16 (= 239) for filenames, to leave room for
.dpkg-divert.tmp. Forget ReiserFS 3. :)
I
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 22:40:52 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
From discussion on IRC earlier this evening, it looks like the most
pragmatic approach will be to get the apt and aptitude sbuild
resolvers to strip the alternatives (after arch reduction), which
will make them behave pretty much
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 15:14:04 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
That said helper tools like dh should be free to use dpkg-buildflags
to set environment variables that ./configure and other similar calls
can inspect and use.
The usual way to pass CFLAGS to configure is as a command line
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 14:25:40 +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.1.0
Severity: minor
Hey
The example in 4.9.1 suggests to set CFLAGS in a way that completely
overrides values from dpkg-buildpackage/dpkg-buildflags[1]:
CFLAGS = -Wall -g
This will set
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 11:44:56 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
This will only be done with the approval of the release team, who
I've copied in.
I don't think that's not going to happen. Try again for wheezy, and
maybe you can manage not to wait until the last minute of the freeze.
Cheers,
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 12:57:05 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 11:44:56 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
This will only be done with the approval of the release team, who
I've copied in.
I don't think that's not going to happen. Try again for wheezy
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 14:18:06 +0100, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
Futhermore lintian warns when using +deb60u1, and it seems to confuse the
bts a bit. See for example the version graph #603456, placing testings
nagiosgrapher/1.7.1-2+deb60u1 above unstables nagiosgrapher/1.7.1-2.1, I'm
get
-them closed.
-/para
/section
/section
FWIW:
Acked-by: Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 00:18:49 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
From: Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:14:42 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] Clarification of the format of control files, Closes:
#501930, #593909.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:31:59 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Piotr Kaczuba p...@attika.ath.cx writes:
Before 1.2.65 logcheck depended on mailx, which was and still is
provided by both mailutils and bsd-mailx. Now that logcheck depends
explicitly on
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 17:43:09 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
So there are three or four things above that we could leave off. Would
people like me to try to trim the checklist down by removing things like
shlibs.local that probably no one is using?
Actually there are packages using
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:49:31 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index c0415c1..9aca16c 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -8014,6 +8014,12 @@ endscript
/footnote
/p
+ p
+ Control information files should be owned
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 18:27:33 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 13/07/10 04:11, Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
+ sect id=sharedlibs-runtime
+ headingRun-time shared libraries/heading
+
+ p
+ The run-time shared library must be placed in a package
+ whose name
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 09:58:39 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
I therefore think we should rewrite this whole section to remove most of
the details and instead just say not to ever use date-based formats like
96May01 and instead use something based off
Sorry for coming back to this, I think I missed this new requirement
initially (or I skipped this thread, I don't remember...).
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 23:28:11 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
Le Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:22:37PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 19:31:43 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
However, I think this whole bit really doesn't belong in Policy. For
packages that are snapshot-based with no regular version number but one
that might show up later, I'd use 0~MMDD. For ones that are
pre-releases, I'd use
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 14:11:17 -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
A possible way to implement this state-based policy without relying on the
underlying boot system would be to require packages and users to never call
init script directly and to make service(8) the interface to init scripts for
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:15:38 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 1e641e6..9a72be5 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -5470,8 +5470,13 @@ Replaces: mail-transport-agent
pfiledebian/shlibs.local/file/p
p
-
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:19:42 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 9a72be5..2a634b8 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -5654,7 +5654,11 @@ objdump -p /usr/lib/libz.so.1.1.3 | grep SONAME
/example
/footnote
The
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:21:13 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 9fe7158..587a6b2 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -1214,9 +1214,11 @@
/p
p
- You should not use prgndpkg-divert/prgn on a file
- belonging to
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:06:04 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 9fe7158..2635fa8 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -7361,40 +7361,58 @@ strip --strip-unneeded varyour-lib/var
/p
p
- An ever increasing number of
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:57:45 +, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
sdm (0.4.1-2) unstable; urgency=low
.
[...]
* No longer include dash as a dependency; it is included in essential.
* Add lintian overrides for missing-dep-for-interpreter dash, as dash
is now essential.
My
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 12:24:07 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
- tagttBuild-Depends-Indep/tt,
- ttBuild-Conflicts-Indep/tt/tag
+ tagttbuild/tt, ttbuild-indep/tt, ttbinary/tt,
+ and ttbinary-indep/tt/tag
item
-The
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 13:01:57 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 720150d..1e134bb 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -5163,11 +5163,20 @@ Replaces: mail-transport-agent
headingDevelopment files/heading
p
- The
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 13:29:42 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 720150d..23a8c90 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -2488,8 +2488,6 @@ Package: libc6
The syntax and semantics of the fields are described below.
/p
-!--
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 13:29:42 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Objections or seconds?
With the typo fixed, seconded.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 09:58:28 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Objections or seconds?
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 87b9795..99ab0ff 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -2398,6 +2398,11 @@ Package: libc6
/p
p
+ Each paragraph may contain at
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 09:34:50 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.4.0
Severity: wishlist
AFAIK, the current version of dpkg in stable supports symbols files, so I
think it is time we loosen the requirement for shlibs files when symbols
files are present.
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 21:33:29 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Packages must include a copyright or lack-of-copyright statement
in debian/copyright. Claims that the policy never meant
copyright notices were supposed to be included in the first place
only muddle the discussion.
This says
Coming back to an old patch...
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 23:42:21 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 0bf1001..45d6643 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -2726,7 +2726,12 @@ Package: libc6
values:
list
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 03:06:17 -0500, Borden Rhodes wrote:
Good morning,
I have a question regarding timestamps in Debian package logs. One of my
biggest frustrations when troubleshooting problems with Xorg, for example, is
that the .xsession-errors and Xorg.log entries are not time
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 22:25:56 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.3.0
Tags: patch
User: debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Usertags: informative
Clarify what is meant by verbatim copy of its copyright and distribution
license to be explicit about what
/misc.
The second depends on the first.
fwiw
Reviewed-by: Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 18:55:45 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Where was announced the requirement from the FTP team ?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2009/10/msg4.html
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 20:50:30 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 0bf8253..347c0bf 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -5584,6 +5584,40 @@ libbar 1 bar1 (= 1.0-1)
/item
item
p
+
Hi,
it's been pointed out to me that we violate FHS ever since [1] is
included in Debian.
The FHS says All X Window System manual pages must have an x appended
to the filename.
Now there are some options.
1) add an exception in policy to allow the removal of this x suffix
2) revert this change
Please don't remove the debian-x cc…
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 15:49:52 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 02:29:09PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
Hi,
it's been pointed out to me that we violate FHS ever since [1] is
included in Debian.
The FHS says All X Window
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 23:38:17 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
That's unfortunate. Imagine the following scenario:
1. Package P is released in sarge, with version 1.0-1.
2. Package P is installed on a system S, running sarge.
3. etch is released with P 1.0-1.
4. A security bug is found in P.
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 14:06:17 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 11:39:40AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 23:38:17 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
That's unfortunate. Imagine the following scenario:
1. Package P is released in sarge
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 18:37:05 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
2) These packages may just symlink
/usr/share/doc/${package name}-${debug suffix} to
/usr/share/doc/${package name}
(and of course, depend on ${package name}
5) There may only be
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 19:43:29 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think at this point, now that debconf is mandatory for all but essential
packages, removing the guarantee of a controlling terminal is
uncontroversial. This bug has been open for a while and I'd like to put
it to bed. Here's
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 13:37:39 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
The following wording has received one second and needs an additional
second to be committed to the next revision of Policy. Is everyone happy
with it?
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -8885,6 +8885,15 @@ name
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 16:02:50 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort poch...@gmail.com writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
Sorry about the delay in dealing with this. I've now committed:
sect1 id=f-Installed-Size
headingttInstalled-Size/tt/heading
p
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 09:57:04 -0400, Jonathan Yu wrote:
Oh. Interesting. I was (clearly) unaware of that. How recently was
this? What was the reasoning behind it?
I think this is the part where you do your homework.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 13:29:48 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
I formally object to the part '(in other words, the size in kibibytes)'.
(I believe this change is not informative and only serve the purpose of
endorsing a standard which does not meet consensus in Debian.)
+1.
Cheers,
Julien
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 23:54:13 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org writes:
Ping Russ? :)
Sorry about the long delay on the rewrite of the X installation
directory section. Here's proposed rewording for the whole section.
How does this look to everyone
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 09:20:51 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
As far as branches are concerned, the default branch should point to
the debian packaging branch and that's it.
And how do you do that, when the debian and upstream repos are the same?
That seems to be a fairly arbitrary
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 19:13:23 -0700, Martin Dorey wrote:
debian-policy appears to define Installed-Size's units as thousands of bytes:
5.6.20 Installed-Size
This field appears in the control files of binary packages, and in the
Packages files. It gives the total amount of disk space
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 11:53:19 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
It is not an alternative:
- It is ugly
- it is not on root partition
The ugly part it is IMHO the most important part.
Ugliness is relative. I have no problem with printf.
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 18:50:42 -0400, Andres Mejia wrote:
@@ -2723,7 +2725,8 @@ Package: libc6
In the main filedebian/control/file file in the source
package, or in the source package control file
file.dsc/file, one may specify a list of architectures
-
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 07:30:57 -0400, Andres Mejia wrote:
On Wednesday 27 May 2009 06:51:58 Julien Cristau wrote:
This makes it sound like you can't mix architecture names and
architecture wildcards. Is that on purpose?
Current policy has this wording and I didn't want to change
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 16:07:27 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
Hi,
I noticed that Debian policy (§5.6.14) states that the control field
distribution may contain several distributions (comma-separated). But the
space-separated, actually.
Debien Developers Reference (§5.5) states that “is
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 16:40:34 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 0140043..144cbfb 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -2588,6 +2588,14 @@ Package: libc6
package control file when the source package has the same
name and
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 05:08:38 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
how about:
p
The installation of files into subdirectories of
file/usr/X11R6//fileis now prohibited. Include files
should be installed into file/usr/include/X11//file. For
files
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 02:30 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
Or is RC too much? Or fine now?
Anything normal would be too much IMO.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
