Re: new fields in debian/control

2000-07-17 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Package: packaging-manual I'm adding three new fields to debian/control: ... Sorry if I do perhaps address the wrong people, but I would like to propose two other fields (there might be better names than the ones I found): Successor-Of: As far

Bug#69311: PROPOSAL] Finishing the /usr/doc - /usr/share/doc transition.

2000-08-20 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, Chris Waters wrote: I think an addendum is needed to this proposal -- if any package *has* had symlinks in /usr/doc, then it needs to clean them up in its install scripts, now, and possibly forever. This is one of the reasons I objected to the symlinks in the first

Re: [PROPOSAL] Allowing crypto in the main archive

2001-01-10 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote: ... Non-free programs with cryptographic program code need to be stored on the non-us server because of export restrictions of the U.S. So for the export restrictions only a non-US/non-free will be needed. Programs which use

Re: [PROPOSAL] Allowing crypto in the main archive

2001-01-10 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote: So for the export restrictions only a non-US/non-free will be needed. crypto export restrictions, yes. Right. That means if you use an algorithm that is patented in Germany the package will be in non-us? You better rename this non-US to

Re: [PROPOSAL] Allowing crypto in the main archive

2001-01-11 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Marco d'Itri wrote: But is it non-US/main or non-US/non-free? non-US/main, since the license to the software itself is free. But if I don't misunderstand chapter 7 (and 8) of the GPL a program licenced under the GPL that is threatened

Question about native packages

2001-02-04 Thread Adrian Bunk
Hi, I have with Siggi Langauf (the maintainer of xine) a discussion in bug #84754 whether xine is a Debian native package or not. The facts are: - xine is a MPEG, VCD, DVD audio/video player for X11 that runs e.g. on FreeBSD - Siggi is both upstream and Debian maintainer and he include the

Re: Question about native packages

2001-02-04 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sun, 4 Feb 2001, Siggi Langauf wrote: Hi, Hi Siggi, On Sun, 4 Feb 2001, Henrique M Holschuh wrote: [...] 1. Are you likely to do small revisions that only affect the debian/ subdir, and the source package is big ? - if yes, choose non-native, because you'll not need to

Re: Question about native packages

2001-02-04 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sun, 4 Feb 2001, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote: Native is best choosen for packages which are not expected to be used outside of Debian, btw. If I were xine's upstream, I'd package it as non-native. The non-native format is more flexible. Packaging it native is a perfectly valid thing to

Re: Question about native packages

2001-02-04 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sun, 4 Feb 2001, Siggi Langauf wrote: If your package isn't a native package you can still include the debian/ subdirectory in your upstream sources. Right. There are only two differences compared to a native packge: - The version number is 0.3.6-1 instead of 0.3.6 . Aha. There

Re: only release packages that have maintainers?

2001-02-20 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: Anyone have comments on the idea that the only packages we should release are ones that have a maintainer, not Debian QA? Then I'll adopt all the packages that don't have a maintainer and send RFAs for them (like I did with several of the

Re: only release packages that have maintainers?

2001-02-20 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Brian Russo wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 07:56:04PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: Anyone have comments on the idea that the only packages we should release are ones that have a maintainer, not Debian QA

Re: only release packages that have maintainers?

2001-02-20 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Brian Russo wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:57:39PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Brian Russo wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 07:56:04PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: Then I'll adopt all

Re: only release packages that have maintainers?

2001-02-20 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Brian Russo wrote: ... example: saml There is 7 open bugs on it (1 serious, 6 normal, 1 wishlist) Standards-Version: 2.3.0.1 upstream last touched it approximately /four/ years ago. ... I forgot to say about this example: Ian Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] intends to adopt

Re: packages with really old standards version

2001-02-20 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: So, I grabbed fmirror today because an admin friend suggested it. I cd'ed to /usr/share/doc/fmirror and low and behold, no /usr/share/doc/fmirror. I check the changelog and this binary-any package has not been uploaded in 2 years. It is

Re: only release packages that have maintainers?

2001-02-20 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20010220 17:04]: What you need to realize (and probably do) is that you have finite time and that if after a while you no longer have time to maintain the ... are willing to remove the packages if you fail to

Re: only release packages that have maintainers?

2001-02-20 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Brian Russo wrote: ... I'm willing to spend some time on the packages that are orphaned, it doesn't matter if they are officially maintained by QA or by me. Has anyone a good reason why it's bad when I take care of these packages instead of seeing them getting

Re: packages with really old standards version

2001-02-21 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 06:27:40PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: I file any bugs I detect, once I get lintian running on the archive, old packages beware (-: A package of 2.x policy behaves in a way different than current packages. They

Bug#89807: packaging-manual still refers to /usr/doc

2001-03-15 Thread Adrian Bunk
Package: packaging-manual Version: 3.2.1.0 Severity: normal $ zgrep usr/doc /usr/doc/packaging-manual/packaging.text.gz `/usr/doc/copyright/GPL' in the Debian GNU/Linux distribution or on dpkg --fsys-tarfile filename.deb | tar xof usr/doc/\*copyright | less file from

Finishing the FHS transition

2001-05-06 Thread Adrian Bunk
Hi, I want to suggest to finish the FHS transition. This includes the following steps: - Packages with Standards-Version = 3.0 must follow the FHS. Policy version 3.0.0.0 was released 30 Jun 1999 and I consider this enough time for every maintainer to switch to at least this

Re: Finishing the FHS transition

2001-05-06 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Chris Waters wrote: I want to suggest to finish the FHS transition. This includes the following steps: - Packages with Standards-Version = 3.0 must follow the FHS. Didn't we already have this discussion? The Standards-Version field is not a reliable indication of

Re: Finishing the FHS transition

2001-05-07 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Chris Waters wrote: Didn't we already have this discussion? The Standards-Version field is not a reliable indication of much of anything. I strongly object Policy says: Policy says doesn't make the packages comply. And you can file all the bugs reports you want,

Re: Finishing the FHS transition

2001-05-07 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Anthony Towns wrote: ... Standards-Versions aren't release critical. You can put it as Standards-Version: 526.7.8.9.13-Foo.6 if you want. And no matter what I will practice your suggestion and upload my packages with Standards-Version: 526.7.8.9.13-Foo.6.

Re: Bug#96458: xv is NOT a native Debian package (fwd)

2001-05-10 Thread Adrian Bunk
17:41:23 -0700 From: Philippe Troin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bug#96458: xv is NOT a native Debian package Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 7 May 2001, Philippe Troin wrote: No, native vs. non-native is just the absence vs

Re: Bug#96458: xv is NOT a native Debian package (fwd)

2001-05-10 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, 10 May 2001, Joey Hess wrote: ... People who read policy like rules lawyers are often disappointed and often do foolish things. Please bring common sense with you when you open the policy manual. When I read the policy like a lawyer I get answers like this was not intended and when I

Is it allowed to remove old changelog entries?

2001-05-14 Thread Adrian Bunk
Hi, I had some time ago a discussion with Paul Slootman in #85936 about the removal of old changelog entries. He did remove at one point all changelog entries except the latest on (and Raphael Bossek did recently the same in some of his packages). Paul simply closed #85936 with the comment --

Re: Is it allowed to remove old changelog entries?

2001-05-14 Thread Adrian Bunk
On 14 May 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Policy doesn't seem to forbid it, but it should be assumed that they should be retained. There is no good reason to ever snip changelogs. Maintainers have to do the Right Thing, and not merely say policy doesn't forbid it. Policy doesn't forbid

Re: Is it allowed to remove old changelog entries?

2001-05-14 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Colin Watson wrote: ... Also see #82790, whose maintainer apparently never keeps more than one changelog entry. Unfortunately, unless someone has the old changelog entries and can NMU, not a lot can be done about it. After reading Thomas' answer it seems to be the correct

Re: woody release task needs help: package priorities

2001-05-18 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Anthony Towns wrote: ... Since there's a 'tetex' task, I've also dropped tetex from standard to optional: people who want TeX will need to choose the task now. Current policy says: -- snip -- `standard' These packages provide a reasonably small but not

Bug#87510: I second this proposal

2001-05-18 Thread Adrian Bunk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 -- snip -- Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies (i.e., packages which require ... MUST specify...) Build time dependencies have been in policy for 18 months already. -- snip -- I second this. (but there must

Bug#109432: Section 9.6 should mention the case that a source package builds the library itself

2001-08-20 Thread Adrian Bunk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Package: debian-policy Version: 3.5.6.0 Severity: normal Section 9.6 of the policy says about debian/shlibs.local: This file is intended only as a _temporary_ fix if your binaries or libraries depend on a library whose package does not

Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?

2001-12-06 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, VALETTE Eric wrote: I have been discussing quite a lot on different debian mailing list on a way to automate debian installation. The final and almost unfiform answer was to use debconf in non-interactive mode. The technical reason is that due to use of tty the following

Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?

2001-12-06 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote: ... If debconf isn't good enough that everyone's not using it voluntarily (lilo has been converted *from* debconf), then the obvious thing to do is to improve debconf, not try to force everyone to make their packages worse. ... Which of these cases is

Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?

2001-12-10 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sat, 8 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote: ... If you want every package to use debconf, that's fine and wonderful. Go make a list of the ones that don't, write patches so that they will, file bugs so the maintainer knows about them, then have a friendly discussion with the maintainers to make

Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?

2001-12-11 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote: On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Massimo Dal Zotto wrote: The lack of automatic installation is the reason why I don't install Debian any more for my customers. Oh, and to clarify: I completely agree. This is, IMO, the biggest missing

Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?

2001-12-11 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:16:15PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: - a package has it's documentation in /usr/doc - the maintainer gets a patch how to change it - the maintainer refuses the patch I want to have the documentation in /usr/doc

Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?

2001-12-11 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote: ... aj, who'll be proposing the MUST/SHOULD nonsense be removed from the hands of policy when he gets some free time again Let's play the evil maintainer game: I play the evil maintainer who does everything with his packages that isn't forbidden.

Bug#159114: debian-policy: non-us server is located in a country where it's possible to patent algorithms

2002-09-01 Thread Adrian Bunk
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.5.7.0 Severity: important -- snip -- ... 2.1.5. The non-US sections -- ... Programs which use patented algorithms that have a restrictied license also need to be stored on non-us, since that is located in a country where

Bug#159114: acknowledged by developer (Patents can't cover software in .nl after all)

2002-09-08 Thread Adrian Bunk
reopen 159114 thanks On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: ... Hi, The relevant law, according to: http://www.ivir.nl/wetten/nl/row1995.html -- 2. The following are not regarded inventions in the

Bug#176506: Make debconf mandatory for prompting the user

2003-01-13 Thread Adrian Bunk
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.5.8.0 Severity: wishlist Your policy says: -- snip -- ... 2.3.9.1. Prompting in maintainer scripts Package maintainer scripts may prompt the user if necessary. Prompting may be accomplished by hand, or by

Bug#176506: Make debconf mandatory for prompting the user

2003-01-15 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 03:54:03PM +0100, Roland Mas wrote: Adrian Bunk (2003-01-13 12:00:31 +0100) : I'm therefore suggesting that you change your policy to something like: -- snip -- ... 2.3.9.1. Prompting in maintainer scripts

Bug#176506: Make debconf mandatory for prompting the user

2003-01-22 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 06:31:59PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Adrian Bunk writes (Bug#176506: Make debconf mandatory for prompting the user): ... The problem is that within the rules of your policy every single of your over thousand maintainers can decide how he wants to maintain his

Bug#216104: Please clarify Section 2.5. required - essential

2003-10-16 Thread Adrian Bunk
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.6.1.0 Severity: wishlist Section 2.5. of your policy says: -- snip -- ... `required' Packages which are necessary for the proper functioning of the system. You must not remove these packages or your system may become

Bug#837478: Static libraries - PIC or PIE?

2016-10-23 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 12:29:42PM +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote: > Hi Ardian, Hi Bláint, ;-) > 2016-10-23 10:18 GMT+02:00 Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>: > > Hi Bálint, > > > > there is some confusion regarding how static libraries should be > > compiled now.

Bug#837478: Static libraries - PIC or PIE?

2016-10-23 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 03:17:06PM +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote: > Hi Adrian, > > 2016-10-23 13:26 GMT+02:00 Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>: > > On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 12:29:42PM +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote: > >> Hi Ardian, > > > > Hi B

Bug#837478: Static libraries - PIC or PIE?

2016-11-21 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 07:12:19PM -0700, Phillip Hellewell wrote: >... > - Now tries to link a few of the libraries statically (e.g., > libicuuc.a). ld blows up with a bunch of relocation R_X86_64_32S, blah > blah blah, recompile with -fPIC errors. The error message is misleading, PIE is

Bug#846970: debian-policy: Proposal for a Build-Indep-Architecture: control file field

2017-08-02 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 11:56:58PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 07:47:47PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > 1. Debian does not currently have non-amd64 binary-all autobuilders > > > > Stating that binary-all packages in the archive are always being >

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:48:15PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote: >... > I've also included a purely informative change which emphasises that > packages that are team maintained in name only should be orphaned > properly, with their maintainer field set to the QA team. This is > already current best

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

2017-08-03 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:41:07PM -0400, David Bremner wrote: > > > > So yes at any time they are a number of active, hard-working team, but there > > also a larger number of phantom team that used to be active, but whose > > packages are still maintained in Debian. It is important they carry

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:01:24AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 04:22:41PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Bill Allombert writes: > > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:48:15PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote: > > > > >> I've also included a purely informative

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:30:11PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:01:24AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 04:22:41PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > Bill Allombert <ballo...@debian.org> writes: > > > > On Wed, Au

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 05:41:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> writes: > > > Regressing on being able to orphan all packages of a known-MIA/retired > > maintainer would be very bad. > > I agree, but that's not directly relevant h

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:25:46PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote: >... > What I don't understand in the point of view of the "keep Uploaders" > proponents: What does this information, whether correct or not, > actually give others? Are they going to email or phone these persons > privately when

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:36:04PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:06:16PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Please be more thoughtful about the consequences of such changes to policy. > > > > This would not be "a purely informative change". >

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:11:07PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Tobias Frost writes: > > > Some time ago I did some spring cleaning going over DDs that have > > retired but still in the Maintainer/Uploader fields: There were quite a > > lot "team maintained" packages where the

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:16:30PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 02:16:03 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:25:46PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote: > > > What I don't understand in the point of view of the "keep Uploaders&qu

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-04 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:48:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >... > One approach as Holger points out: look for > packages where all the recent uploads have been by the MIA member, which > doesn't require the Uploaders field at all. As I already tried to explain, this is an easy part that could

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

2017-08-15 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 03:34:35PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: >... > +Reproducibility > +--- > + > +Packages should build reproducibly, which for the purposes of this > +document [#]_ means that given > + > +- a version of a source package unpacked at a given path; > +- a set of

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

2017-08-15 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 11:23:14AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: >... > - for now, we only require reproducibility when the set of environment > variable values set is exactly the same > > This is because > > - the reproducible builds team aren't yet totally clear on the > variables that

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

2017-08-15 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:49:22AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> writes: > > > I would expect the reproducible builds team to not submit any bugs > > regarding varied environment variables as long as as the official > > definition of re

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

2017-08-15 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:00:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >... > This in absolutely no way constrains the reproducible build team from > working on raising the bar in the future, just as the absence of this > language from Policy did not prevent them from starting to work on this > problem

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

2017-08-15 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 04:01:00PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > This is about the reproducible builds team not using policy as a stick > > for claiming a bar higher than what policy actually defines. > > > >

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

2017-08-16 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:24:07AM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, 11:02 p.m. Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> wrote: > > > Tracker: > > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/hsqldb1.8.0 > > "Does not build reproducibly during testing" > &

Bug#844431: Revised patch: Oppose

2017-08-16 Thread Adrian Bunk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 03:34:35PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: >... > diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst > index 127b125..6e32870 100644 > --- a/policy/ch-source.rst > +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst > @@ -661,6 +661,28 @@

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

2017-08-16 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:37:00AM +, Ximin Luo wrote: > Adrian Bunk: > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:24:07AM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > >> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, 11:02 p.m. Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> wrote: > >> > >>> Tracker: > >>&g

Bug#844431: Revised patch: seeking seconds

2017-08-16 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 03:43:00PM +, Ximin Luo wrote: > Adrian Bunk: > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:37:00AM +, Ximin Luo wrote: > >> [..] > >> > >> Fair enough. I actually spotted that but thought it was better to get > >> "something"

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-11 Thread Adrian Bunk
at 04:48:54PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Approximate data based on grep'ing Packages[1]: > - 466 teams maintaining packages in unstable > - 8 is the median number of packages maintained by a team > - 73 teams maintaining a single package > > A package with 500 LOC might have

Bug#844431: Status update from the Reproducible Builds project

2017-07-24 Thread Adrian Bunk
>... > Debian Policy > = > > We are in the process of making reproducibility of packages something > properly documented in policy. Writing patches for policy is not easy, > so we welcome input from everyone to be able to better consider all the > needed facets. See bug #844431 [16]

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-04 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:59:40AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Fri, 04 Aug 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote: >... > > Uploaders is not the only option for doing that, but any change should > > include provising more reliable information - not less reliable > > information. >

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-04 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 08:25:57AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Fri, 04 Aug 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Regressing on being able to orphan all packages of a known-MIA/retired > > maintainer would be very bad. > > > > Think of it as a 3 step process: > >

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-05 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 03:28:57PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 10:39:02AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > I don't understand this suggestion. If it can be automatically > > > generated, just generate it when you need it -- why store it in the

Bug#798476: Bug#870788: Extract recent uploaders from d/changelog

2017-08-05 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 03:19:29PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 04:35:35PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > > Note that a prerequisite for such debian/changelog parsing would be > > > > that policy sets strict syntax and semantics requirements. > > > > > > No, we do not

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-05 Thread Adrian Bunk
One thing that is worth discussing here: For how many teams would it bring real benefits if they no longer have to maintain team membership information in every source packages? My guesstimate is that these might perhaps be 5 teams. Why is my guestimate so low? It only brings real benefits

Re: Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-05 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 11:01:41AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 01:55:01AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 10:46:19PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:59:40AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > > > An O: bug means

Re: Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-05 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 02:15:16PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: >... > Besides, while it doesn't imply you shouldn't make an upload that only > changes the maintainer (unlike 5.9.5. Adopting a package), I think it's > the usual practice to not make such upload. For people who are orphaning

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-05 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 02:10:41PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Fri, 04 Aug 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote: >... > > In a more general note, I am a bit puzzled that it is so controversial > > that machine-readable team membership information is important and > > should

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-05 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 02:57:49PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >... > but regardless of > that discussion, machine-readable team information is not something we > have now. Policy says that Uploaders should list all co-maintainers. Who is considered a co-maintainer is determined by team policy or

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-05 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 06:20:31PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, Aug 04 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > Autogenerating Uploaders like GNOME does [1] would be an alternative > > approach. > > > > [1] > > https://sources.debian.net/src/g

Bug#846970: debian-policy: Proposal for a Build-Indep-Architecture: control file field

2017-08-01 Thread Adrian Bunk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 07:32:29PM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: normal > > Following a recent discussion on debian-devel[0], I'd like to > formalize the (XS-)Build-Indep-Architecture: header mentioned there. >

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

2017-08-01 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 04:33:49PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: >... > Before doing that, at the risk of achieving nothing, I'd like to suggest > another wording: > > ... if the Maintainer control field names a group of people and a > shared email address, the Uploaders field must be

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-07 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 04:29:34PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >... > since teams are less likely to only have a single leaf package. Approximate data based on grep'ing Packages[1]: - 466 teams maintaining packages in unstable - 8 is the median number of packages maintained by a team - 73 teams

Bug#798476: Bug#870788: Extract recent uploaders from d/changelog

2017-08-05 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 06:13:09PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Package: tracker.debian.org > Severity: wishlist > > On Thu, Aug 03 2017, Holger Levsen wrote: > > > Then, Tobias has a point, knowing which team members uploaded a package is > > useful. So I have a simple proposal to achieve that:

Bug#844431: Revised patch: Oppose

2017-08-16 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 09:30:23AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >... > This text is a formalization and simplification of existing practice that > we worked out in conjuction with the reproducible builds team and that > strikes a balance between attempting to enumerate all the causes of >