Package: dpkg
Version: 1.16.1.2
Severity: wishlist
Symptom
~~~
I just installed libjs-mathjax. According to its Installed-Size this
would just consume 16512KB. Now according to policy this is just an
estimate of course. But how accurate is it actually? So I installed said
package on ext3.
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Apparently the debian-policy currently says nothing about the characters
used in filenames contained in binary packages. Most packages use common
sense and only use a small subset of US-ASCII. In Debian sid main most
filenames can be represented using the
Thanks for your comments.
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 01:31:32PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
- There are here and there discussions raising possible corner cases
where distributing files with a name not representable in UTF-8 might
be justified, for instance in test suites.
Even though
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 08:01:03PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
after more than one month of discussion, we have not reached a conclusion.
Thanks for the ping.
In the current situation there is no policy, which means that everything is
allowed. Indeed, there is at least one package with
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 08:20:15PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
sec id=filenames
headingFile names/heading
p
The name of the files installed by binary packages in the system
PATH
(namely tt/bin/tt, tt/sbin/tt, tt/usr/bin/tt,
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 11:58:03AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
I think configuration files should also be included in the first list,
because the
user is supposed to be able to interact dirrectly with them.
I object to this extension of the proposal, because use of UTF-8
characters in
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 02:22:47PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
Why files in ca-certificates are configuration files in the first place ?
I doubt users are expected to edit PEM certificate.
Correction of what I said before: ca-certificates does not ship them as
conffiles, but as configuration
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.2
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Appending C.3 says:
All the directories in the diff must exist, except the debian
subdirectory of the top of the source tree, which will be created by
dpkg-source if necessary when unpacking.
This is exactly one exception
Hi,
thanks to Manoj for pointing this out and Richard for explaining it.
Unfortunately this rc bug is still open after two months.
Short summary:
sendmail-base.prerm invokes an init script without invoke-rc.d which
technically is forbidden by the Debian policy. (report from Manoj)
The part
severity 553135 normal
thanks
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 01:50:40PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
That being said, this is clearly not the problem that either Policy or the
Lintian tag were designed to catch, and you should feel free to decrease
the severity and add an override. Also, please feel
On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 12:22:47PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
It is also worth asking what functionality the Installed-Size field is
supposed
to have when looking for a solution. It's primary purpose is probably to give
apt a clue of whether or not there is enough free space to install a
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:33:06AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> I suspect stage1 might also still be useful for (possibly pre-emptively)
> breaking cycles involving build-time vs. runtime dependencies, like the one
> that historically existed between glib2.0 and dbus: it seems more
>
Hi Sean,
Thanks for picking up multiarch!
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 09:50:21PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I spoke to Russ and we're both of the view that we should document
> multiarch piecemeal. Let's begin by getting a definition of the
> Multi-Arch: field into ch. 5 of policy.
I'm glad you
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:28:42AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> get-orig-source and watch files serve a different purpose.
>
> get-orig-source is used to build the .orig. tarball from the true
> upstream one. Most package do not need that. Watch files could not do
> that until recently.
>
>
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 07:23:14PM +0100, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> I also suspect that given DEB_BUILD_PROFILES=nocheck implies
> DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck, the same should be true for nodoc?
Like DEB_BUILD_PROFILES=nocheck does *not* imply
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck (you must set the latter
Hi Simon,
On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 05:26:57PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> That seems like it might be a bug (or design flaw if you prefer). If a
> package (build-)depends on foo:any, it is saying "I am only using the
> arch-indep parts of foo's interface", whatever those are.
You may call it
On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 08:44:14AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Rather than introduce the new terminology 'intended interface', which we
> would definitely have to define, how about something like this:
>
> If all a package's architecture-dependent interfaces are listed in
>
Hi Santiago,
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 11:58:12AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> blame for such bug, is annoying me. (So, Helmut, please file a bug
> in the bootstrapping tool which does not work for you, and do not
> try to fix it here).
I refuse the view that multistrap is buggy. You cite
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 07:50:27AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > I would certainly consider a lot cleaner to add a new field to base-files in
> > the form "Bootstrap-Depends: base-passwd" than converting all chowns in
> > postinst to use integer numbers.
>
> I agree that we should not expect
Package: base-passwd,base-files,debian-policy
Debian policy section 3.8 says:
| Essential is defined as the minimal set of functionality that must be
| available and usable on the system at all times, even when packages
| are in the “Unpacked” state.
When unpacking (but not configuring) a
Hi Santiago,
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 06:17:50PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> To be precise: Who is unpacking (but not configuring) a buster or
> unstable essential package set, if not a bootstrapping tool?
multistrap is doing just that.
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.5.0.3
Severity: wishlist
Jakub stumbled into the "No hard links in source packages" requirement
added around 1996 and couldn't make sense of it. Neither could Christoph
nor myself. tar does support hard links just fine. lintian does not
check this property.
Hi cate,
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 04:10:00PM +0200, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> The rationale was probably similar so symlinks: they may fail across
> different filesystems, and we supported to have e.g. / /usr /usr/share
> /usr/local /var (and various /var/*) /home /tmp /boot etc on different file
On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 10:53:20AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Can you post a patch just doing the moving manpages to dependencies part
> and indicate that you are seeking seconds? Then we can get that
> applied.
I call for seconds on:
--- a/policy/ch-docs.rst
+++ b/policy/ch-docs.rst
@@ -12,9
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.5.1.0
Severity: wishlist
I think that the Debian policy is unreasonably strict in its manual page
requirement. While the common case is that manual pages are small and
should be included in the same package, occasionally they are numerous
and moving them to a
On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 11:58:08AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 08:29:21AM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > So this is actually asking for two distinct things:
> > * Allow moving manual pages to dependencies
> > * Allow demoting such depen
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 07:33:10AM +, Tim Woodall wrote:
> A. /etc/passwd is part of base-passwd's interface and base-files is
>right in relying on it working at all times. Then base-passwd is rc
>buggy for violating a policy must. Fixing this violation is
>technically impossible.
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.6.2.0
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-Cc:
debian-cr...@lists.debian.org,rb-gene...@lists.reproducible-builds.org
Hi,
more and more packages implement a technique called profile guided
optimization. The general idea is that it performs a build that is
instrumented
Hi Luca,
On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 10:50:14PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> X-Debbugs-Cc: j...@debian.org hel...@subdivi.de
>
> Debian only supports merged-usr since Bookworm. We should update policy
> to reference /usr/bin/sh and similar paths to describe recommended
>
Hi Russ,
On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 07:20:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> From 12b014c4b930577a728dfb1254b64aac6a5eb1e0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Russ Allbery
> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 19:15:52 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] Allow hard links in source packages
>
> It's not clear why this
Hi Joshannes,
On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 02:35:30PM +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues
wrote:
>To enable creating a foreign architecture Debian chroot during the early
>bootstrap of a new Debian architecture, maintainer scripts and utilities
>called by maintainer scripts of
On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 02:56:59PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> I think one way or another, if anyone is going to set a package-level
> dependency on systemd-tmpfiles, the first (preferred) dependency needs to
> be on either a concrete provider (systemd or systemd-tmpfiles-standalone
> in this
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.6.2.0
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-d...@lists.debian.org, de...@lists.debian.org
Hi,
first of all huge thanks to David, Guillem and Julian for all of their
explanations. In large parts, this bug report is yours and I'm just the
one writing it down.
§7.4 currently
33 matches
Mail list logo
