Howdy all,
(FTP masters: we are asking for your attention to this bug report,
but is *not* urgent. We are aware the Squeeze release is active, and
any work to do with that has higher importance than this bug report.)
This bug report appears to need further discussion. To summarise:
Policy's
package debian-policy
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
usertags 196367 + discussion
tags 196367 + patch
thanks
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Policy's current wording (in §2.5 and §5.6.6) strongly implies that an
erroneous Priority value is a Policy-violating bug in the
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to 'package':'debian-policy'
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was
tags 196367 - patch
thanks
patch means that you're actively asking for seconds, which it sounds from
what you write below that you're not yet.
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
package debian-policy
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
usertags 196367 + discussion
tags 196367
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tags 196367 - patch
Bug #196367 [debian-policy] Clarify Policy on priority inversion in dependencies
Removed tag(s) patch.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
196367:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 13:41:47 +0200, Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 04:51:29PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
No, I mean that a complete consistency in the set of 10K packages
is practically impossible to achieve, let alone sustain. And then
there's always
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 04:51:29PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
No, I mean that a complete consistency in the set of 10K packages is
practically impossible to achieve, let alone sustain. And then
there's always situations where it seems wrong to demote all
non-default alternatives to
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:10:51 +0200, Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
No, I mean that a complete consistency in the set of 10K packages is
practically impossible to achieve, let alone sustain. And then
there's always situations where it seems wrong to demote all
non-default alternatives to
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 13:44:37 +0200, Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 01:25:35PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
I second the clarifying paragraph. I object to changing to
should. We must fix the wrong priorities once and forever, and
keep them sane sane from release
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 12:33:52PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
I propose this patch:
--- policy.sgml~2003-07-21 12:17:53.0 +0200
+++ policy.sgml 2003-07-21 12:31:13.0 +0200
@@ -779,11 +779,24 @@
/p
p
- Packages must not depend on packages
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 01:52:58PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
[...]
I propose this patch:
--- policy.sgml~2003-07-21 12:17:53.0 +0200
+++ policy.sgml 2003-07-21 12:31:13.0 +0200
@@ -779,11 +779,24 @@
/p
p
- Packages must not depend on packages
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 01:52:58PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
[...]
I propose this patch:
--- policy.sgml~2003-07-21 12:17:53.0 +0200
+++ policy.sgml 2003-07-21 12:31:13.0 +0200
@@ -779,11 +779,24 @@
/p
p
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 01:25:35PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
I second the clarifying paragraph. I object to changing to should.
We must fix the wrong priorities once and forever, and keep them sane
sane from release to release. If the *current* ftpmasters have not
achieved this goal yet, I
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 01:25:35PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
I second the clarifying paragraph. I object to changing to should.
We must fix the wrong priorities once and forever, and keep them sane
sane from release to release. If the *current*
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 01:54:59PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
I second the clarifying paragraph. I object to changing to should.
We must fix the wrong priorities once and forever, and keep them sane
sane from release to release. If the *current* ftpmasters have not
achieved this goal
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 01:54:59PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
By unenforceable you mean that ftp.debian.org do not allow NMUs?
No, I mean that a complete consistency in the set of 10K packages is
practically impossible to achieve, let alone sustain.
On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 10:02:14PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 16:33:23 +0100, Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Yes yes, we know all that. However, hundreds of release-critical bug
reports cause very real practical problems for our release
management processes,
On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 09:59:18PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
So fix the bug in the package, and clone it and assign the
clone to ftp.
It is a bug if the package has the wrong priority, and it is a
bug if the override file needs fixing. Just because there are two
On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 11:40:10 +0100, Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 10:02:14PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 16:33:23 +0100, Colin Watson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Yes yes, we know all that. However, hundreds of release-critical
bug reports
On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 11:55:07 +0100, Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 09:59:18PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
So fix the bug in the package, and clone it and assign the clone to
ftp.
It is a bug if the package has the wrong priority, and it is a bug
if the
[ I'm far too despair-ful of to properly reply to this thread, but... ]
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We have heard from the ftp master that [...]
Err, no, you haven't. Richard answered as an ex-ftp-master. FWIW, I
(as one of current ftp-master) support Colin's proposal.
--
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 12:39:45PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
And since we do make mistakes here, and since any change can cause a
ripple-effect, making other packages suddenly violate this clause,
and since violations of this are both quite harmless and hard-to-spot,
how about we change it to
On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 03:40:37PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 12:39:45PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
And since we do make mistakes here, and since any change can cause a
ripple-effect, making other packages suddenly violate this clause,
and since violations of this
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 11:16:02PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 21:39, Chris Waters wrote:
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 01:52:58PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
Every so often, somebody encounters the bit of the policy manual that
says:
Packages must not depend on packages
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 01:52:58PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
(I'm not sure in exactly what format ftpmaster would prefer
reports like this - perhaps somebody could clarify - but I do know that
hassling maintainers is a horribly ineffective way to get this job
done.)
I can give you the
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 16:33:23 +0100, Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Yes yes, we know all that. However, hundreds of release-critical bug
reports cause very real practical problems for our release
management processes, especially when they are unnecessary.
Hundreds of RC bugs? Is
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:52:58 +0100, Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.5.9.0 Severity: wishlist
Every so often, somebody encounters the bit of the policy manual
that says:
Packages must not depend on packages with lower priority values
(excluding
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 16:25:58 +0100, Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Fortunately, this is not an amazingly big deal.
In your opinion, of course.
manoj
--
It is not good for a man to be without knowledge, and he who makes
haste with his feet misses his way. Proverbs 19:2
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.9.0
Severity: wishlist
Every so often, somebody encounters the bit of the policy manual that
says:
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
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 01:52:58PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
Every so often, somebody encounters the bit of the policy manual that
says:
Packages must not depend on packages with lower priority values
(excluding build-time dependencies). In order to ensure this, the
priorities of one
On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 21:39, Chris Waters wrote:
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 01:52:58PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
Every so often, somebody encounters the bit of the policy manual that
says:
Packages must not depend on packages with lower priority values
(excluding build-time
31 matches
Mail list logo
