Your message dated Sun, 08 Sep 2002 00:34:49 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Reviewing policy bugs
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 16 Nov 2001 11:35:18 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 16 05:35:18 2001
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from ns1.alcove-solutions.com (smtp-out.fr.alcove.com)
[212.155.209.139]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 164hHB-0005QM-00; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 05:35:17 -0600
Received: from kasba.alcove-fr ([10.16.10.14])
by smtp-out.fr.alcove.com with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
id 164hHA-0007Ys-00; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:35:16 +0100
Received: from ydirson by kasba.alcove-fr with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
id 164hHE-0004sd-00; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:35:20 +0100
From: Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [PROPOSAL] Postscript files requirements
X-Reportbug-Version: 0.54.1
X-Mailer: reportbug 0.54.1
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:35:20 +0100
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: debian-policy
Version: N/A; reported 2001-11-16
Severity: normal
I propose that we add a section under the "documentation" chapter, to
request a minimum of coherence and sanity of PostScript files.
My problem is that some maintainers (probably for paper-saving
reasons, which in itself is a valuable idea) ship 2-up versions of
postscript files, whereas others ship 1-up versions.
Problem with 2-up is that it is meant for printing, and not ideal for
online browsing. I suggest that we require not to feed postscript
documents through a n-up-izer tool.
In the same direction of allowing easy browsing of ps docs, I suggest
that we require ps docs to contain orientation and format information.
Note: incidentally, it is possible that some n-up-izer tools (namely
psutils) strip this information.
See also: my bug report against package iproute
-- System Information
Debian Release: 2.2
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux kasba 2.2.19-reiserfs #1 Thu May 3 15:17:15 CEST 2001 i686
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 119821-done) by bugs.debian.org; 8 Sep 2002 05:44:16 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Sep 08 00:44:16 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from pcp559992pcs.rthfrd01.tn.comcast.net
(glaurung.green-gryphon.com) [68.52.105.148] (srivasta)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 17nurn-00071A-00; Sun, 08 Sep 2002 00:44:15 -0500
Received: from glaurung.green-gryphon.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-3) with ESMTP id
g885YpYs005876;
Sun, 8 Sep 2002 00:34:55 -0500
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-3) id
g885Yo51005873;
Sun, 8 Sep 2002 00:34:50 -0500
X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.1 (via feedmail 9-beta-7 I)
To: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Reviewing policy bugs
From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2
(i386-debian-linux-gnu) (i386-debian-linux-gnu)
X-URL: http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
Organization: The Debian Project
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Time: Sun Sep 8 00:34:49 2002
X-Face: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/;Y^gTjR\T^"B'fbeuVGiyKrvbfKJl!^e|e:iu(kJ6c|QYB57LP*|t
&YlP~HF/=h:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6Cj0kd#4]>*D,|0djf'CVlXkI,>aV4\}?d_KEqsN{Nnt7
78"OsbQ["56/!nisvyB/uA5Q.{)gm6?q.j71ww.>b9b]-sG8zNt%KkIa>xWg&1VcjZk[hBQ>]j~`Wq
Xl,y1a!(>6`UM{~'X[Y_,Bv+}=L\SS*mA8=s;!=O`ja|@PEzb&i0}Qp,`Z\:6:OmRi*
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 00:34:49 -0500
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Lines: 172
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
Perusuant to my message earlier, there are the first set of
pending bug reports.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
* #114920: [PROPOSAL] remove foolish consistency in perl module names
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 3=
34
days old.
There was a long discussion, and I think most objections were
were addressed. An interesting point was that debian packages are
typically named after the CPAN _distribution name_, not the _module
name_; and this needs be fixed in Perl policy to reflect reality.
We need to modify the proposal to require the full name (as
put in provides) to be also mentioned in the long description, and
then perhaps perl policy can be changed? Are there any objections to
this?
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
* #115438: [PROPOSAL] addition of new menu tag for kde menu removal
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: "Ivan E. Moore II"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 329 days old.
From what I can gather, this proposal calls for the menu
system honouring either a kderemove or a removeonwm tag, and not
installing duplicate entries; however, as I understand it, there is
no code, so this seems to be in the design phase.
I think this is not suitable for inclusion in policy until we
have modified the menu package (isn't it being rewritten or
something?). Should be retitled PENDING, and severity lowered to
wishlist or something.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
* #119821: [PROPOSAL] Postscript files requirements
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
295 days old.
Would make shipping only 2-up versions of postscript docs
illegal. Gathered no seconds. I am not sure we need to make this
policy. If the documentation is unreadable, bugs should be
filed. Policy is, umm, not a stick. or sumpn.
I am going to close this bug.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
* #123074: adding gfdl(7) and gpl(7)
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Matthias Klose
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 272 days old.
Also gathered no seconds.
I think licenses should be added to common licenses when they
are indeed common. Roughly speaking, I would think that one needs to
have at least a 5% share before one dubs a license common, don't you
think? In any case, gdfl does not yet qualify (even discounting
rumblings I heard regarding whether it is deemed free enough).
I am going to close this bug.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
* #128681: Debian Menu Policy
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Ben Bucksch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
239 days old.
Umm. this bug report requires that a new. logical, consistent
menu policy be created ;-).
I am going to lower severity to wishlist until there is some
meat to this report.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
* #128734: debian-policy: criteria for Games/Puzzles is not precise
enough
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>;
239 days old.
Yet another menu classification bug. I am going to lower
severity to wishlist until there is some meat to this report. Perhaps
merge with 128681.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
* #129375: debian-policy: typo/logic error in debconf spec
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Wichert Akkerman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 235 days old.
Umm. This seems like an out right bug in policy (though I
don't yet grok debconf). I guess policy needs to be fixed.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
* #131583: debian-policy: packaging-manual section 7.1 missing from
policy
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Gergely Nagy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 220 days old.
* #148194: debian-policy: Clarification needed regarding multi-line
fields
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: "John R. Daily"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 104 days old.
Hmm. I guess this could fall under the specifications bit. I
would like the input of the dpkg folks to figure out what the format
specification for the input files that packages need to create; and
include them into policy.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
* #132069: sysnews: Attempt to be FHS compliant breaks compatibility
with System V standard
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Dominik Kubla
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 216 days old.
Oh, great. The FHS and the SysV standards are incompatible.
Has someone followed this up with the FHS folks?
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
* #132767: debsum support should be mandatory
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Matthew Wilcox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 212 days old.
From the report itself:
> All rpm-based systems support rpm --verify. Having
> debsums support optional makes debian an inferior
> distribution in this aspect. Making DEBIAN/md5sums
> required rather than optional would rectify this
> situation.
debsums is a poor and incomplete solution. The best
thing is to have dpkg compute+store the same data when
the package is unpacked on the fly. Then we don't bloat
the archive, the feature can be turned on/off, etc.
From the debsums man page:
DPkg::Post=E2=80=90Invoke {
"debsums =E2=80=90=E2=80=90generate=3Dnocheck =E2=80=90sp /var/c=
ache/apt/archives";
};
/etc/apt/apt.conf fragment to generate missing checksums
after upgrade/install.
I am going to close this report.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
* #143941: define a usable character set for description/maintainer na=
me
etc.
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Junichi Uekawa
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 139 days old.
Hmm. Seems like we want to support utf-8 for the future,
though perhaps that can wait until we get tool support for
that. dpkg-query should start supporting it soon. I guess we should
shelve this until we have better support from the tool chain. (we do
not have consensus, in any case)
I'll retitle this to PENDING and reduce severity to wishlist.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
* #149709: [BUG] section 10.3.3 does not provide enough guidance for
package maintainers to use update-rc.d correctly
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: "Branden Robinson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 88 days old.
Hmm. Part of this is a flaw in policy; the second part seems
like a dictum to how update-rc.d ought to behave. The former is under
the purview of policy, and shall be changed.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
manoj
--
It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might be
wrong. Chris Torek
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivast=
a/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
