Re: Rationale for Policy 8.4

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 at 11:39:49 -0400, Nikolaus Rath wrote: Can someone explain to me the reason behind this policy? What's wrong with shipping libpython2.6 so in python2.6 / why should an application dlopen() libpython2.6.so.1 rather than libpython2.6.so? The rationale probably doesn't apply

Bug#592564: document unusual but supported file system configurations

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 at 09:28:22 +0200, Carsten Hey wrote: Read-only mounting /etc seems to imply that it can also be on a separate file system (although I never saw such a setup) Doesn't work: to boot and mount /etc you need /etc/fstab and /etc/init.d/* and so on, for which you need /etc. I

Re: Build-depends for arch independent files

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 at 20:22:17 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: This means that architecture restrictions must not be used in binary relationship fields for architecture-independent packages (Architecture: all). This just forbids the following: Architecture: all Depends: hello

Re: Bug#610083: Remove requirement to document upstream source location in debian/copyright ?

On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 at 18:39:15 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: The URL of the web site for this package, preferably (when applicable) the site from which the original source can be obtained and any additional upstream documentation or information may be found. I'd always interpreted this

Re: Patch for MultiarchCross

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 at 03:05:53 +, Wookey wrote: To make multiarch useful for cross-building as well as co-installation of libraries we need to install headers to /usr/include/triplet, which needs an FHS exception. Some libraries (notably GLib and D-Bus) already isolate their

Re: Patch for MultiarchCross

On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 at 21:51:03 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: Requiring the user to pass -I to the compiler should be discouraged. I disagree: independently of multiarch, many libraries do this deliberately to allow for parallel-installation, and use pkg-config to give out appropriate CFLAGS.

Re: Updating the recommendations for user configuration files (Policy chapter 9)

On Thu, 19 May 2011 at 15:15:39 +0200, Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT) wrote: As you probably know, there is now a trend [2][3] of placing all configuration files into the same directory, which defaults to ~/.config/ but can be changed, as well as two separate directories for user

Re: Bug#621833: System user handling in packages: status of discussion

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 at 10:12:20 +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote: * Should packages also remove the contents of the system account's home directory? Should this be done upon package remove or purge? I think packages should remove their state on remove/purge (as appropriate), just like they do now.

Re: Bug#625449: Permanent BSP patch

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 at 04:25:58 +0200, Steve Langasek wrote: Index: pkgs.dbk === --- pkgs.dbk (revision 8898) +++ pkgs.dbk (working copy) @@ -1947,6 +1947,11 @@ itemizedlist

Re: Bug#487201: MPL in common-licenses and convenience of packaging mozilla extensions

On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 at 18:01:42 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: how about a repository of ready-made stand-alone license paragraphs ? Perhaps, but be careful with that sort of thing: it may *look* like your package's license, but is it actually the same text? For a long named license like the

Re: Replacing ‘may not’ and ‘shall not’ by ‘must not‘ ?

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 at 09:32:09 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes: being a non-native speaker, I sometimes make the error of understanding “may not” as “it is allowed to (one may) not do”, while it rather means “must not”. Like for instance in the recent

Re: Please apply the following patches for copyright-format.xml.

Some minor corrections for those patches: On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 at 00:01:17 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: section id=example-header-paragraph titleExample header paragraph/title -programlistingFormat: lt;VERSIONED_FORMAT_URLgt; +programlistingFormat:

Re: Bug#636383: debian-policy: 10.2 and others: private libraries may also be multi-arch-ified

On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 at 15:17:29 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: We could resolve this by either disallowing to use file/usr/lib/vartriplet/var/file, or by explaining that the subdirectory must be private to the package or to a set of collaborating packages, as the non-public libraries themselves.

Re: Bug#636383: debian-policy: 10.2 and others: private libraries may also be multi-arch-ified

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 at 16:33:56 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml index b8db0ab..d0baa1b 100644 --- a/policy.sgml +++ b/policy.sgml @@ -7697,8 +7697,9 @@ strip --strip-unneeded varyour-lib/var Shared

Bug#661933: debian-policy: mandate UTF-8 encoding for copyright files

On 03/03/12 03:29, Russ Allbery wrote: diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml index 1a61d4f..4fd60d9 100644 --- a/policy.sgml +++ b/policy.sgml @@ -9936,6 +9936,10 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY fileREADME.Debian/file or some other appropriate place. /p + p + All

Bug#621833: locking system users on package removal

On 30/06/12 13:24, Stephan Springl wrote (on Bug #679642): quake-server does neither install nor purge properly on systems without shadow password because usermod gives an error for its e option in this case. I took this use of usermod from the discussion on debian-devel regarding Policy bug

Bug#522163: apt-cacher: change AUTOSTART to ENABLED in /etc/default/apt-cacher

On 04/10/12 09:52, Mark Hindley wrote: It would be good if apt-cacher would use similar variable: ENABLED=0 instead of current: AUTOSTART=0 This would help grepping which services are 'enabled'. I don't think packages should do this, except as a way to respect sysadmin

Re: Bug#649530: [copyright-format] clearer definitions and more consistent License: stanza specification

On 25/12/12 12:34, Ximin Luo wrote: Example: | Files: X | Copyright: A | License: BSD-3-Clause | Copyright 2012 A | terms etc I don't think this is the problem: if the first two lines of /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD (Copyright (c)... All rights reserved) were ignored or removed, that

Re: Bug#701081: debian-policy: mandate an encoding for filenames in binary packages

On 21/02/13 11:43, Helmut Grohne wrote: The number of exceptions is about 200 contained in about 50 binary packages. Do you have a list handy? What proportion of them are UTF-8? You can test via, for instance: echo $filename | isutf8 -q /dev/stdin || echo not UTF-8: $filename with

Re: Bug#582109: debian-policy: document triggers where appropriate

hat class=native-en_GB-speaker On 10/04/13 11:24, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On 10-04-13 12:07, Raphael Hertzog wrote: + whitespace, everything after the first hash character (tt#/tt) whitespaces ? (with s) No, absolutely not. The word whitespace does not have a plural form, since it is

Bug#601455: marked as done (can't stop daemon using /etc/init.d/foo stop when disabled via /etc/default/foo)

On 09/12/13 15:24, Bas Wijnen wrote: From: Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org I've decided to close this bug, as this mis-feature / bug is actually a main characteristic of system V init scripts: they can be+do anything, including showing the behaviour which led to this bug report. That

Re: Bug#707851: Soften the the wording recommending menu files: let's do it in Jessie.

On 10/01/14 03:14, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: WRT the current FDO wording, I like it. All packages that provide applications that need not be passed any special command line arguments for normal operation should register a menu entry for those applications There is a

Re: Bug#737559: copyright-format: author != copyright, add an author field?

On 03/02/14 19:43, Daniel Pocock wrote: One risk of not having this extra field is that we could accumulate excessive things in the Copyright field. E.g. some packagers may be including the names of contributors as if they are copyright holders because they are afraid their package will be

Bug#593611: Clarify whose signature should go in debian/changelog (4.4)

On 03/03/14 13:43, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: [*] imho preparing an NMU debdiff _is_ asking for it to be uploaded... There's a significant difference between these possible reasons to send a diff to a bug: * I made a change, I'm confident that it's right, and I'm going to (NMU it|ask for a

Re: Bug#758234: [PATCH] Remove priority extra, make all corresponding packages priority optional

On 23/08/14 17:54, Gerrit Pape wrote: --- a/policy.sgml +++ b/policy.sgml @@ -855,15 +855,6 @@ zope. distribution, and many applications. Note that optional packages should not conflict with each other. That last sentence is not feasible if the 'extra' priority is

Re: Bug#759492: File conflicts between /bin and /usr/bin

On 27/08/14 17:59, Russ Allbery wrote: Some other distributions have merged /bin, /sbin, and /lib into /usr via the symlinks: /bin - /usr/bin /sbin - /usr/sbin /lib - /usr/lib /lib64 - /usr/lib64 Other merges worth considering if you're in a kill all the directories mood:

Re: Policy regarding /etc/profile.d

On 15/10/14 00:17, Santiago Vila wrote: etc/profile.d/vte.sh libs/libvte-2.90-common etc/profile.d/vte-2.91.sh libs/libvte-2.91-common These ones, at least, are for non-essential functionality: the New Window and New Tab

Re: Bug#758234: it's actively harmful

On 23/10/14 02:04, Adam Borowski wrote: Thus, I propose not merely removing this policy requirement, but also replacing it with the opposite: # A package should not (must not?) elevate its priority just because it's # depended on unless it has extra functionality that itself warrants a given

Re: Bug#758234: it's actively harmful

On 29/10/14 12:41, Santiago Vila wrote: If we are going to take that route, we might just make all libraries optional as a general rule. That seems reasonable to me, with the possible exception of the few libraries that could justify their own priority via the wtf, why isn't this installed?

Bug#768292: debian-policy: please allow copyright file to refer to license text in separate files

Package: debian-policy Severity: wishlist [X-Debbugs-Cc: ftpmas...@debian.org because I know the Policy maintainers don't actually control what is or isn't acceptable in the archive in this respect.] Some packages currently have stanzas like this in their copyright files: License: MPL-2.0

Bug#768292: debian-policy: please allow copyright file to refer to license text in separate files

On 06/11/14 13:02, Bill Allombert wrote: I do not thing that policy allow it, because that break the assumption that the copyright contains all the relevant information. olicy 2.3 below states a verbatim copy which exclude indirections. That's why this is wishlist. I don't think policy does

Bug#768292: debian-policy: please allow copyright file to refer to license text in separate files

On 06/11/14 12:17, Tobias Frost wrote: just maybe another datapoint, as recently there was a similar dicussion on d-devel, the thread started as https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/09/msg00704.html (difference: This was a question brought up by Markus if it is sufficient to referencfe

Bug#768292: Let's add the MPLs to /usr/share/common-licenses ? (was Re: Bug#768292: debian-policy: please allow copyright file to refer to license text in separate files)

On 10/11/14 22:41, Charles Plessy wrote: For the avoidance of doubt, I have also counted the numbers for other CC licenses; here is the result. ... CC-BY 1.011 CC-BY 2.0 1 CC-BY 2.533 CC-BY 3.0 311 CC-BY-SA 1.0 2

Re: Bug#758234: transitive dependencies

On 13/11/14 09:59, Matthias Urlichs wrote: I'd like to suggest the following Policy change to fix the depend on packages with lower dependencies non-problem. This does simplify current practice, but unfortunately not Policy itself, as adhering to policy shouldn't allow you to break

Re: Bug#758234: transitive dependencies

On 13/11/14 12:34, Bill Allombert wrote: For me priority are purely metadata provided by the override file. Policy does not require software to use them in anyway, I think. Policy does not require software to use them; but in practice, software does use them, and so changing a Priority has

Re: Bug#758234: transitive dependencies

On 15/11/14 09:35, Santiago Vila wrote: If those are the real reasons, then let's drop the rule only for *libraries*, but not for every other package. I think libraries are merely the most visible and obvious example of something that is pulled in as an implementation detail of part of the

Bug#768117: debian-policy: WSGI API must distinguish between Python 2 and 3

On 23/11/14 17:19, Bill Allombert wrote: On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 02:38:39PM +1100, Brian May wrote: We need two virtual package names, one for Python2 and one for Python3. What I am unclear is why a single virtual package httpd-wsgi3 will work for python 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 etc. All versions of

Bug#554054: , #554077: s/ftp-master.debian.org/ftp.upload.debian.org/ etc.

= yourdebianlogin, incoming = /org/ftp-debian-org;/incoming/DELAYED/$delay-day/, dinstall_runs = 1, From: Simon McVittie s...@debian.org Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:36:46 + (+) Subject: #554077: don't mention dead upload queues, but do mention ftp.eu.upload and ssh.upload X-Git-Url

Bug#469154: chapter 4.10: PTS summary description needs update

into a git-svn branch; feel free to take these patches from that repository, or ignore it, as you see fit.) From: Simon McVittie s...@debian.org Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:43:12 + (+) Subject: #469154: update PTS summary description X-Git-Url: http://git.debian.org/?p=users%2Fsmcv

Bug#555685: typo transferred instead of transfered

tags 555685 + patch severity 555685 minor thanks While I'm doing trivial patches anyway... (For my own convenience I'm collecting patches into a git-svn branch; feel free to take these patches from that repository, or ignore it, as you see fit.) From: Simon McVittie s...@debian.org Date: Fri

Bug#540231: Override changes

tags 540231 + patch thanks How about this for a patch? (For my own convenience I'm collecting patches into a git-svn branch; feel free to take these patches from that repository, or ignore it, as you see fit.) From: Simon McVittie s...@debian.org Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:46:48 + (+

Bug#561597: developers-reference: servers in upload queue list is old

forcemerge 554077 561597 thanks This bug report seems to be a duplicate of #554054 (for ftp.upload) and #554077 (for Japanese queues). I've written patches for both bugs, which have been reviewed by Julien Cristau but don't seem to have been merged. Do the two patches (which are attached to both

initial packages with multiarch paths

/ +(but move the pkg-config file back to /usr/lib/pkgconfig since pkg-config +doesn't yet look in multiarch locations) + * Set the shared library package to be Multi-Arch: same + + -- Simon McVittie s...@debian.org Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:56:02 + + libgfshare (1.0.3-2) unstable; urgency=low

Re: initial packages with multiarch paths

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 at 14:08:07 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: FWIW, it was an unintended consequence of the wording of the policy change that static libs and .so symlinks are permitted in the multiarch dirs at this point As Goswin pointed out in an earlier thread, in the general case (libraries

Re: Bug#650077: dpkg: The Installed-Size estimate can be wrong by a factor of 8 or a difference of 100MB

On 07/01/15 18:53, Helmut Grohne wrote: Consider Alice. She wants to install foo, which has a good approximation for her filesystem. Unfortunately, it is too big to be installed. Thus she looks at other packages and determines that she no longer needs bar. Duly she issues apt-get install foo

Re: developers-reference: Acknowledging NMUs

On 07/01/15 15:43, Guillem Jover wrote: On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 13:25:39 +0100, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote: After some discussions it is consensus that all changelog entries must included. I don't agree with this. If the NMU is not good, or I don't agree with it, I'll not be including the

Re: debian/copyright in source package

On 16/08/15 17:23, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: On Sun, 16 Aug 2015, Santiago Vila wrote: To allow for the file to be automatically generated at build time, which in turn avoids useless duplication of license text in the source package. But what shall be the source for this generation? I've

Bug#795402: base-files: Please add Creative Commons license texts

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 at 18:41:08 +0100, Tony Houghton wrote: The Creative Commons licenses are quite popular for non-code files and at least some of them are acknowledged to be DFSG-compatible since 3.0. https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses only explicitly lists CC-BY-SA, but I believe at least

Re: Bug#796660: Binaries in binary packages match the architecture

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

Re: Bug#804018: dpkg: provide options to avoid service startup on package installation

On 19/11/15 12:43, Marc Haber wrote: > Will this also work if a package does not come with a sysvinit init > script Not in the same way. That's the deb-systemd-invoke code path, which still respects policy-rc.d, but does not actually use invoke-rc.d to do it. > or the sysvinit init script is

Re: Bug#804018: dpkg: provide options to avoid service startup on package installation

On 19/11/15 11:51, Marc Haber wrote: > Disclaimer: I do not know whether the new nice systemd world still > honors invoke-rc.d mechanisms. It does. There are two code paths: invoke-rc.d is run by the maintainer scripts of packages with a sysvinit script (regardless of whether they have a

Re: Bug#823584: [PATCH] Correct top-level directory name in repackaged tarballs

On Sat, 07 May 2016 at 09:04:24 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > * The Debian upstream source is identical to the original, so “.orig” > is appropriate in the directory name. > > * The Debian upstream source should unpack to ‘foo-1.2.3~xyz.orig/’. If we use upstream's tarball and do not repack

Bug#833401: debian-policy: virtual packages: dbus-session-bus, dbus-default-session-bus

Package: debian-policy Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-de...@lists.debian.org I propose two new virtual packages: dbus-session-bus: anything providing the D-Bus well-known session bus for user login sessions dbus-default-session-bus: Debian's preferred implementation of dbus-session-bus

Bug#833401: debian-policy: virtual packages: dbus-session-bus, default-dbus-session-bus

On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 at 21:47:38 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > dbus-default-session-bus: Debian's preferred implementation of > dbus-session-bus Andreas Henriksson points out on IRC that default-dbus-session-bus is more like the situation with mail-transport-agent and default-mta, and

Bug#833709: Please add the MIT/Expat license to common-licenses

On Sun, 07 Aug 2016 at 21:00:12 -1000, Josh Triplett wrote: > Numerous packages use the MIT/Expat license, and currently all of those > packages need to include it in their copyright files. Although Policy does not say so, the ftp-masters require the license grant to be quoted in the copyright

Bug#181123: [PATCH 0/2] Mention try-reload and status actions

On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 at 04:09:31 +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > Andreas Henriksson (2): > Document optional try-restart init script action > Document status init script action Both patches seconded. There is of course plenty more to be done in this chapter, but let's not let the perfect be

Re: Bug#698012: debian-policy: Please update 10.6 "Device files" for udev and the like

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 at 16:12:53 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > I propose the following section to completely replace this section. This > preserves what I think are the still-useful requirements while making it > clear that nearly all packages should keep their hands off of /dev > entirely.

Bug#835876: debian-policy: please suggest dbus-run-session to run tests

Source: debian-policy Version: 3.9.8.0 Severity: minor User: d...@packages.debian.org Usertags: dbus-launch dbus-launch-for-tests As described in I'm trying to reduce how much dbus-launch is used in Debian. The autopkgtest document in

Re: Bug#845715: debian-policy: Please document that packages are not allowed to write outside their source directories

On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 at 12:54:12 +, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Quoting Adam D. Barratt (2016-11-26 09:40:17) > > On Sat, 2016-11-26 at 03:34 +, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > > + None of the required targets must attempt to write outside of > > > the > > > > the current wording means

Bug#175064: DocBook XML conversion is read with this script

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 at 11:32:09 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bill Allombert writes: > > > I am concerned that DocBook is much too complex to be used for Debian > > policy. We need to people to write patches without trouble and we do > > not have many editors available for

Re: Bug#835490: debian-policy: remove references to upstart

On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 at 12:10:08 +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > Upstart is no longer part of Debian[1] nor actively maintained > upstream. Policy should drop references to it as an alternative init > system. Seconded.

Bug#757760: debian-policy: please document build profiles

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 at 09:06:23 +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote: > It is not intended to completely forbid the "stage1" profile name. It is clear > that it has its use for the initial cross-compiler bootstrap involving glibc, > gcc and linux. I suspect stage1 might also still be useful for

Bug#865713: Declaring a charset of UTF-8 for policy files

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 at 15:04:41 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Stéphane Blondon writes: > > pabs added such configuration few days ago for Apache configuration: > > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/mirror/dsa-puppet.git/commit/?id=5bcf8431d6b375d211a29f9d2c338e4400332e1a

Bug#787816: Replace FHS 2.3 by FHS 3.0 in the Policy.

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 at 22:37:04 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > I assume if we allow /usr/libexec, we also need to support > /usr/libexec/x86_64-linux-gnu/ etc. ? I'm not sure I see why we would? Platforms with the "multilib" lib/lib64 duality (Red Hat derivatives, etc.) only have one

Re: Bug#542288: debian-policy: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 at 14:08:05 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > +upstream_version components in > +native packages ending in +nmu followed > +by a number indicate an NMU of a native package. I thought 1.2.3-4+nmu1 was also allowed as an alternative to

Bug#640263: debian-policy: Clarify policy section 9.9 - Environment variables

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 at 14:58:06 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Everyone seemed generally happy with this text, but it never clearly got > enough seconds to apply. Here's an updated patch so that we can take > another run at getting enough seconds and getting it merged. I second the patch quoted

Bug#587279: Clarify restrictions on main to non-free dependencies

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 at 14:43:36 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Here is an updated version of the patch from earlier in this (now very > long) thread for discussion. I still think this is consistent with > previous practice and reasonable documentation of what we're currently > doing. > > diff

Re: Bug#876055: Environment variable handling for reproducible builds

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 at 18:00:51 -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > There is a huge difference between variables that *might* affect the > build as an unintended input that gets stored in a resulting packages in > some manner, and variables that are designed to change the behavior of > parts of the

Bug#876055: Environment variable handling for reproducible builds

(Re-sending this to the bug rather than to debian-policy, sorry for the duplicate on -policy) On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 at 18:00:51 -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > There is a huge difference between variables that *might* affect the > build as an unintended input that gets stored in a resulting

Bug#679751: Patch to close out this bug

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 at 19:06:31 +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: >XDG_RUNTIME_DIR=/nonexistant Unset, please, if you go this route. Unlike HOME, general-purpose software (that doesn't specifically depend on systemd-logind or the older pam_xdg) is expected to cope with XDG_RUNTIME_DIR not being

Bug#874663: Document +dfsg as extenson when repacking upstream sources

On Fri, 08 Sep 2017 at 16:10:44 +0200, Guido Günther wrote: > when upstream tarballs need to be repacked because they contain non-dfsg > free data appending '+dfsg' to the upstream version seems common > practice. However some packages append '.dfsg', others use > +dfsg and there are more formats

Bug#874663: Document +dfsg as extenson when repacking upstream sources

On Fri, 08 Sep 2017 at 10:38:54 -1000, David Prévot wrote: > Le 08/09/2017 à 07:44, Simon McVittie a écrit : > > This made me think that we should maybe only be doing this when > > a *pre-existing* upstream version needs to be repacked. > > […] when upstream releases > >

Bug#749826: Documenting `Multi-Arch: foreign`

On Sat, 02 Sep 2017 at 08:44:14 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Sun, Aug 20 2017, Helmut Grohne wrote: > > A common theme with such cases is to resort to `Multi-Arch: allowed` > > (e.g. make), but that has the downside of requiring most consumers to > > attach the :any annotation and that it can

Bug#878905: debian-policy: Document installability recommendations for dependency alternatives

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 11:54:49 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:02:21AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > This is made especially difficult because since policy 4.0.1.0 we are not > > able > > to rely on 'priority: optional' packages being installable any more. > >

Bug#878967: debian-policy: clarify purpose of debian/changelog

On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 at 23:06:29 -0700, Ross Vandegrift wrote: > During a > recent thread on mentors [1], I learned that the purpose is to provide a human > readable list of changes between released versions of Debian. Between released versions of the package in Debian, rather than versions of

Bug#878905: debian-policy: Document installability recommendations for dependency alternatives

On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 at 18:12:29 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > (1) dconf-service depends default-dbus-session-bus | dbus-session-bus > (2) default-dbus-session-bus is provided by an Architecture: all package, but > depends on systemd > > APT refuses to install that. This specific

Bug#879049: debian-policy: 4.9.1: Allow nodoc to be used to not create empty -doc packages

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 14:16:48 -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > Source: debian-policy > Version: 4.1.1.1 > > I recently introduced support for nodoc for libgdamm5.0 in its > packaging branch (not uploaded to unstable yet) [1]. Since there is > only one arch-indep package, the -doc package, there

Bug#879049: debian-policy: 4.9.1: Allow nodoc to be used to not create empty -doc packages

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 14:58:24 -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Simon McVittie <s...@debian.org> wrote: > > I don't think this is a policy violation: you're mixing up the nodoc > > build profile with the nodoc build option. > > Specifically

Bug#879049: debian-policy: 4.9.1: Allow nodoc to be used to not create empty -doc packages

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 20:30:20 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 02:16:48PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > > I don't think there is any benefit to anyone from empty -doc packages. > > What about packages that depend on -doc packages ? > They might become uninstallable. I can

Bug#459427: changelog vs. NEWS handling

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 at 23:01:08 -0500, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > As others have said, running 'git log' is far more useful than a > complete changelog and in my experience, most projects these days > outside of GNU don't bother shipping changelogs. Many of those projects that do ship a ChangeLog

Bug#786470: debian-policy: [copyright-format] Add an optional “License-Grant” field

I think the License-Grant field is a useful addition to the format, resolving some issues around whether License is meant to be the license, the license grant or both, and I would like to be able to start using it. I assume a normative change to the available fields, and to the meaning of

Bug#614807: debian-policy: Please document autobuilder-imposed build-dependency alternative restrictions

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 at 14:21:13 +0100, Sean Finney wrote: > The Debian autobuilders only make use of the first alternative > in a set of alternatives, in order to guarantee consistent, > reproducible builds. This does not include architecture > restrictions, because architecture reduction takes

Bug#636383: debian-policy: 10.2 and others: private libraries may also be multi-arch-ified

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 at 16:04:17 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Shared object files (often .so files) that are not > public libraries, that is, they are not meant to be linked > to by third party executables (binaries of other packages), > - should be installed in

Re: Automatic downloading of non-free software by stuff in main

On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 at 09:31:57 -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > Ian Jackson wrote: > > The obvious example is web browsers with extension repositories > > containing both free and non-free software. Another example that seems obvious in the context of Debian is libapt frontends. Like a web browser

Bug#786470: debian-policy: [copyright-format] Add an optional “License-Grant” field

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 at 23:54:01 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 09:27:30AM +0000, Simon McVittie wrote: > > I think the License-Grant field is a useful addition to the format > > I strongly disagree with this. I think this adds more syntax without ad

Re: Bug#881166: log files, postrotate example: start-stop-daemon or invoke-rc.d?

On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 at 13:50:31 +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: > Imagine the following scenario: > > - a package distributes an init script that runs the process with a PID file > > - later on, the package maintainer starts distributing a systemd unit > file as well, running the process in

Bug#883950: debian-policy: allow specifying common licenses with only the identifier

On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 at 19:57:26 +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > First of all, I'd like policy to stop being unclear on this matter, or > state whether the correct form is [a brief license reference] or > [the full license grant]. This is not really Policy's decision: it's the ftp team (cc'd) who

Re: Automatic downloading of non-free software by stuff in main

On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 at 14:50:00 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > I appreciate that the configuration I am describing is quite fierce. > Many people would hate it. I wouldn't use it myself. It shouldn't be > the default. Then why are you suggesting that the project should consider using

Bug#813471: network access to the loopback device should be allowed

On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 at 14:09:53 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 01:00:14PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > Jérémy Lal dijo [Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 07:46:43PM +0200]: > > > It might be a good idea to make policy more explicit about downloads > > > during > > > build. > > > > I

Bug#813471: network access to the loopback device should be allowed

On Thu, 10 May 2018 at 17:51:19 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Simon McVittie writes ("Bug#813471: network access to the loopback device > should be allowed"): > > Is it legitimate for a package > > to resolve the reserved name "localhost" during build, and

Bug#787816: Replace FHS 2.3 by FHS 3.0 in the Policy.

better transparency. > By the way, I wonder if the debian-policy package is the best place for > shipping a copy of the FHS. Probably not, but let's not delay its adoption by another 3 years while we paint that particular bike shed :-) smcv >From 8867b0b88d311739fd360f1f6dc945406c39ed

Bug#567033: Decide if we should continue recommending /usr/games

Control: unmerge 567033 On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 at 07:07:49 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > The latest version of the FHS does not have /usr/games, so merging this > with the bug about updating our FHS version. Removing the games directories was considered in

Bug#787816: Replace FHS 2.3 by FHS 3.0 in the Policy.

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 14:37:04 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > There are already 28 /usr/lib/TUPLE/*/bin directories in unstable. > There are probably other directories with binaries not named bin. > > They are candidates for being moved to /usr/libexec, but they should > probably go to

Bug#880920: Document Rules-Requires-Root field

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 13:43:36 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14 2018, Paul Gevers wrote: > >> +This command > >> +allows the ``debian/rules`` target to run particular subcommands under > > > >^^ lintian will tell you this should be "enables" > > As a native speaker I find

Bug#864615: please update version of posix standard for scripts (section 10.4)

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 13:06:43 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14 2018, Simon McVittie wrote: > > I'd suggest replacing SUSv3 with POSIX.1-2017 or SUSv4 2018 edition > > instead, > > Please find a revised patch below; hopefully Gunnar will renew his > second, a

Bug#880920: Document Rules-Requires-Root field

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 18:02:39 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote: > Here is the complete new diff for seconding Seconded (as below). smcv > > diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog > > index 2dea331..b89816e 100644 > > --- a/debian/changelog > > +++ b/debian/changelog > > @@ -1,5 +1,11 @@

Bug#846970: Patch to document Build-Indep-Architecture field

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 18:16:47 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > +Specification of architectures on which the architecture-independent > > > +binary packages are known to be buildable and/or not buildable. If > > > +this field is not specified, it defaults to ``any``, matching all > > > +Debian

Bug#864615: please update version of posix standard for scripts (section 10.4)

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 15:28:04 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14 2017, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > The 2016 edition is Technical Corrigendum 2. I'm not sure that it's > > conventional to use versioning such as 4.2 in such cases, however. I'd > > expect it to be referred to as SUSv4,

Bug#787816: Replace FHS 2.3 by FHS 3.0 in the Policy.

How about the attached patch? Complete patch series (including non-normative) updated here: https://salsa.debian.org/smcv/policy/merge_requests/1/diffs On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 at 14:04:28 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28 2018, Simon McVittie wrote: > > On 64-bit architectu

Bug#515856: debhelper: please implement dh get-orig-source

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 at 21:06:05 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > It would be more useful to kept it but to add a note toward migrating to > uscan if possible. If this is reinstated, please can we discard the requirement that get-orig-source be invokable with an arbitrary working directory? Many

  1   2   >