On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:23:05AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org writes:
Questions for my -policy friends: can I conclude from the above that the
Disclaimer field is to be used _only_ for contrib/non-free packages, and
only to explain the reason of their
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 09:50:35AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 12:42:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Because that's contrary to the obvious meaning of 'deluser' and will be
confusing to maintainers, if it doesn't actually result in the user being
deleted. It's much
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 09:51:38AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
At this point, I would be fully in favor of anyone who has the time to
finish applying whatever patches Steve wanted applied that have consensus
and then uploading 3.9.3 with a request to debian-www that it be linked
into the web
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 05:24:02PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
Bug 609160 is fixed in revision 3.9.2.0 already.
No, that revision contained an old, insufficient version of DEP5, which
needed fixing, so using the same bug was entirely appropriate. It
may conflict with your arbitrary rules for
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 03:57:56PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Hi Lars,
I am not making insinuations.
Sorry, Charles, I was out of line, and my reaction was too strong.
I do think it would be better to forego any changes to DEP5, unless
there's actual problems going on. However, if the
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 07:24:47AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I do not know how to write this diplomatically, and my request to have my
patch
applied was a clumsy way to re-open the discussion without mentionning the
above email, but if 1) the only changes before the DEP is accepted are
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 04:41:28PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
given that DEP 5 is still in the CANDIDATE state, and given that the change is
not normative, I was wondering if the patch I sent in November 2011,
reproduced
below for your convenience, could be applied in the end.
My opinion
I've just reviewed the discussion so far, here's my best attempt
at a summary of the current status:
* To create an user, a maintainer script should call
adduser --system foo. It is not necessary to wrap this in
a check for whether the user exists.
* When the package is removed, the user
On ti, 2011-04-12 at 21:31 +0200, sean finney wrote:
Hi Lars,
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 06:41:10PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
But shouldn't we say they _must_ lock package-specific system users
and groups when the package is removed ?
I think that's a good idea. Steve Langasek
(Cc to the relevant bug added.)
On ma, 2011-04-11 at 14:05 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Lars Wirzenius writes (Re: System users: removing them):
Thus, I propose to change 9.2.2 UID and GID classes, the paragraph on
uids in the range 100-999, to add the following sentence to the end
On ke, 2011-04-13 at 10:49 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 07:16:17PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
reopen 609160
thanks
Attached please find my changes to the docbook conversion.
* remove drivers from abstract (we're mentioned in acks, which is
enough
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.2.0
thanks
Background for the policy list: see thread starting at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/03/msg01174.html
and continuing in April at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/04/msg00210.html
On ma, 2011-04-04 at 21:09 +0100, Lars Wirzenius
Adding a copy to the bug report.
Everyone please Cc 621...@bugs.debian.org if replying to this subhtread.
Thanks.
On la, 2011-04-09 at 10:14 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 09:44:28AM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.2.0
thanks
format for
filenamedebian/copyright/filename files within packages and
facilitate automated checking and reporting of licenses for packages and
-sets of packages. The DEP drivers were Steve Langasek
-emailvor...@debian.org/email and Lars Wirzenius
-emaill
On ti, 2011-03-01 at 19:13 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Ping :). I would be interested in either a copy in debiandoc format
or rules in the Makefile to build from docbook format. If interested
in the latter, please coordinate work using Bug#175064.
I note that since I submitted the bug
On ke, 2011-03-02 at 03:33 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Updating the patch should, I think, be done
only after the draft is final and policy is ready to include it in the
package (even if only in the policy VCS repository).
If you mean that there is no need to update to an intermediate
On la, 2011-01-15 at 23:38 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I still don't get how the versioned Format URL will look like once DEP5
will be shipped by debian-policy though. Would it use the Vcs-Browser of
the debian-policy package or ...? Just curious.
From
+Date: 2011-01-06
+Drivers: Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org,
+ Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi
+URL: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5
+License:
+ Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification,
+ are permitted in any medium without royalty provided
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.4.0
Severity: minor
http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/perl-policy/ch-perl.html
says in section 2.2 (Base Package):
As Perl is currently used by such things as update-alternatives and
some package maintainer scripts, it must be priority
la, 2009-03-21 kello 15:04 +0100, Joerg Jaspert kirjoitti:
We require, and have seen nothing to convince us otherwise, that
Debian
maintainers need to do the basic work of listing each copyright holder in
debian/copyright, as seen in the source files and AUTHORS list or
equivalent (if any).
pe, 2008-07-18 kello 00:03 -0700, Reema kirjoitti:
what is a native debian package?
You may want to ask basic Debian packaging questions on the
debian-mentors mailing list, and to read the introductory materials in
the new maintainer's guide: http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ .
--
To
pe, 2008-07-18 kello 09:51 -0700, Russ Allbery kirjoitti:
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.0.1
Severity: minor
The `start', `stop', `restart', and `force-reload' options should be
supported by all scripts in `/etc/init.d', the
ke, 2008-07-16 kello 09:57 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst kirjoitti:
Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright and
distribution license in the file /usr/share/doc/package/copyright (may be
compressed with gzip -9). This file must not be a symbolic link.
Would it make
On su, 2008-02-24 at 16:43 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
* The package/software SHOULD offer a way to disable the 'phoning home' code
if it contains such kind of 'feature'.
Speaking as a human being, I would suggest that Debian policy should be
that all phoning home MUST be enabled explicitly,
On su, 2008-02-24 at 17:05 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ian's original wording deals with more edge cases, such as apt's
sources.list (which is not turned off by default, at least by definitions
of default that I'm comfortable with).
That's true, and I think Ian's right. I don't, however,
On ma, 2008-01-07 at 18:03 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Hello Debian policy lists,
The new Homepage field is not documented, and neither is its value.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=452105
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On su, 2007-12-30 at 22:46 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Using a specific XML schema for Policy and transforming it into other
things for publication would be really cool and a neat technical hack, but
I'm not sure that it would be work the effort of going through and
figuring out what bits of
ti, 2006-08-01 kello 00:19 +0200, Peter Eisentraut kirjoitti:
The program must use invoke-rc.d to invoke the /etc/init.d/* initscripts,
instead of calling them directly.
What does the program refer to in the second paragraph?
It should be package, that is, the package maintainer
su, 2006-06-25 kello 16:36 +0200, Wouter Verhelst kirjoitti:
It has come to my attention that the gem package is currently built
using 'make -j 4', to have four compiler processes running at the same
time. This is a bit troublesome for the poor m68k buildd, which is now
suffering under High
su, 2006-06-25 kello 10:41 -0700, Tyler MacDonald kirjoitti:
kernel-package uses the CONCURRENCY_LEVEL envrionment variable for
this. And if I do a CONCURRENCY_LEVEL=4 on my single-CPU system, it does
actually go quite a bit faster. :)
Sure, even on a single CPU -jX (X 1) can be faster,
ma, 2006-06-19 kello 13:30 -0400, Justin Pryzby kirjoitti:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.0
Severity: wishlist
policy presently uses #!/ without a space, but some systems
apparently require the space (#! /) and sense the script type
using a 4-byte magic number. info autoconf /
pe, 2006-06-09 kello 22:04 +0200, Bill Allombert kirjoitti:
Sometimes, the changelog will tell you the package was last changed 3
month ago while actually it was changed yesterday and build and uploaded
today. This can lead you to go on a wild-goose chase if you do not know
about the problem.
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.0
[ Moving discussion from -devel to -policy by creating a new bug. ]
ti, 2006-05-23 kello 10:21 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh kirjoitti:
On Tue, 23 May 2006, Florian Weimer wrote:
I suppose it would be preferable to fix the stop target of the init
to, 2006-06-01 kello 23:43 -0700, Ivan Kohler kirjoitti:
Time changes things that were good decisions in the past. Is it time
for policy to start catching up with DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive?
Isn't debconf the future? It just seems silly to force users to write
expect scripts or other
to, 2006-04-06 kello 16:35 -0700, Russ Allbery kirjoitti:
Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 07:05:28PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Seconded. From a lintian perspective, we're intentionally not checking
for wrapped lines in the debian/control file
in that case.
ma, 2006-04-03 kello 00:38 +0300, Lars Wirzenius kirjoitti:
Current policy states in section 9.3.3.2 (Running initscripts) the
following: The use of invoke-rc.d to invoke the /etc/init.d/*
initscripts is strongly recommended[51], instead of calling them
directly.
Footnote 51
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.6.2.2
Severity: minor
In http://localhost/doc/debian-policy/policy-process.html/ch1.html#s1.1
I see 1.1 Guideliens for policy change proposals, the first word
should be Guidelines.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers testing
Current policy states in section 9.3.3.2 (Running initscripts) the
following: The use of invoke-rc.d to invoke the /etc/init.d/*
initscripts is strongly recommended[51], instead of calling them
directly.
Footnote 51 further says: In the future, the use of invoke-rc.d to
invoke initscripts shall
la, 2006-04-01 kello 10:41 +0300, Jari Aalto kirjoitti:
May I then propose following:
- The text should mention, that there is alternative way
to dpkg-shlibdeps: In case of debhelper the command is
dh_shlibdeps which does similar things.
It is not the job of the policy manual to be a
la, 2006-01-14 kello 09:21 +1100, Ben Finney kirjoitti:
If it's information the user needs to understand the package after
installation (such as what executables did I just install?), that
information should go in the package documentation directory.
Manually maintained lists of executables in
On ma, 2003-06-02 at 20:47, Joey Hess wrote:
I'm glad that python is (mostly) using a more sane naming scheme.
Yes, me too. Please, let's not make Python module names ugly just for
consistency.
I would like to see two things:
- Policy proposal #114920 be accepted. This would give the
On ke, 2003-05-14 at 01:45, Joey Hess wrote:
icon size and screen resolution continues to be all over the map from
what I can see
Indeed. With people using tiny laptops with 640x480 pixel screens to
people using high-end workstations with two (or three?) multi-megapixel
screens, there isn't any
On ke, 2003-04-30 at 06:20, Steve Langasek wrote:
It happens with unfortunate frequency that a shared library in the
archive will be built without linking against all the other libraries it
uses symbols from.
Please allow me a stupid question early in the morning. This linking
issue seems to
On ke, 2003-04-30 at 13:33, Pedro Salgueiro wrote:
I want to make a deb package that install files under
DocumentRoot of apache, but the DocumentRoot of apahe
can be anything.
Policy section 12.5 would seem to cover you question:
ti, 14-01-2003 kello 10:23, Jochen Voss kirjoitti:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 01:23:51AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not acceptable. Filenames are and must be in the locale charset. There is
no other sane option [...]
No, this does not work, too. Imagine two scenarios:
3) Floppies,
su, 05-01-2003 kello 03:21, Jamin W. Collins kirjoitti:
So, what do you folks think? Would it be worth while to have a Debian
policy regarding the placement of user configuration files in a
configuration sub directory of the user's home dir?
Speaking as a user, I'd hate this change. It would
install:
.
.
iconv -f iso-8859-15 -t utf-8 debian/changelog
debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/$(PACKAGE)/changelog.Debian
gzip -9 debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/$(PACKAGE)/changelog.Debian
Would it not make more sense to do the conversion once, in
debian/changelog, rather than
47 matches
Mail list logo
