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 Sun, 23 Aug 2015, Julien Cristau wrote:
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.
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 debian/copyright in the
source package. So this change is not a new
Control: tags -1 =
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:46:22AM -0500, Richard Jasmin wrote:
SELinux ENABLED and ENFORCING and INSTALLED WITH SeTroubleshoot [like
Fedora has]
This is not a question for policy. SELinux is not enabled by default in
Debian because no one has gone to the effort of ensuring
Processing control commands:
tags -1 =
Bug #796642 [debian-policy] debian-policy: hardening is an afterthought and
should never be
Removed tag(s) security, upstream, and newcomer.
--
796642: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=796642
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact
* Simon McVittie:
On 23/08/15 11:31, Florian Weimer wrote:
For example, shipping i386 binaries instead of amd64 binaries is not
acceptable, even though these programs might run with the default
Debian kernel.
This does not match current practice in all cases: multilib (lib32gcc,
etc.) has
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 23/08/15 11:31, Florian Weimer wrote:
For example, shipping i386 binaries instead of amd64 binaries is not
acceptable, even though these programs might run with the default
Debian kernel.
This does not match current practice in all cases: multilib (lib32gcc,
etc.) has a lot of i386
Package: debian-policy
It seems to me that a requirement is missing from the policy that
binaries (DSOs and executables) which are intended to run on the host
must be located in a binary package, and the architecture of the
binary package must match the DSO/executable architecture.
For example,
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 06:41:12PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
via a script that indents the license
text by 1 space and puts . on blank lines.
This sounds like a thing caused solely by DEP-5 (which some people tend to
ignore, because of such things).
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
* Steve Langasek:
Harden flags set AND ENFORCED on build environment(harden package)
There is no way to enforce the use of hardening flags.
There is a way, involving multiple steps:
1. Put -grecord-gcc-switches into the hardening flags.
2. Make debuginfo packages mandatory.
3. Make full
11 matches
Mail list logo
