Re: Versioned Symbols
> > dlopening with RTDL_GLOBAL, where there is an option to > > dlopen with RTDL_LOCAL. > > hmm... how does that behaves when the conflict is two or more libs down the > chain from the PoV of the stuff being dlopened? I have thought that symbols are resolved locally, as to allow modules to be linked with other libs without affecting the main application namespace. There will be problems when modules are not linked to other shared libraries explicitly, but if modules have the appropriate shared library dependency information, it is possible. I think GTK+ (glib) module loading was considering a switch over to local resolution. It was not possible for 1.2, because some modules were not linked with shared libraries. regards, junichi
Bug#184368: sematic error, 2.3.1 The package name
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 07:48:11PM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 03:57:07PM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote: > > Package: debian-policy > > > > Section 2.3.1 says: > > "Package names must consist of lower case letters (a-z), digits (0-9), > > plus (+) and minus (-) signs, and periods (.)." > Double negative expressions are error prone and difficult to understand > for non-native speakers. I think it is fine as is since the original > text uses "consist of" instead of "contain". Just put an "only" in the original sentence: "Package names must only consist of lower case letters (a-z), digits (0-9), plus (+) and minus (-) signs, and periods (.)." - Sebastian
Bug#184368: sematic error, 2.3.1 The package name
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 07:48:11PM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 03:57:07PM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote: > > Package: debian-policy > > > > Section 2.3.1 says: > > "Package names must consist of lower case letters (a-z), digits (0-9), > > plus (+) and minus (-) signs, and periods (.)." > > > > It should say something like: > > "Package names must not consist of anything other than lower case letters > > (a-z), digits (0-9), plus (+) and minus (-) signs, and periods (.)." > > > > because it is not desirable, and not the current convention to make > > packages contain all of the items in the list. eg why force apt to have > > digits, plus and minus signs and periods. It would have to have a name > > like apt00+-.. to be valid. > > Please do not push pedantic argument too much :-) > > Double negative expressions are error prone and difficult to understand > for non-native speakers. I think it is fine as is since the original > text uses "consist of" instead of "contain". How about: "Package names must consist only of lower case letters (a-z), digits (0-9), plus (+) and minus (-) signs, and periods (.)." inserting the word only? > > BTW, I have never seen any package name starting any of "+", "-", or > ".", nor I have seen any package name with repeated ".". I guess common > sense rules. Policy 2.3.1: must begin with an alphanumeric. Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, website: http://www.polya.uklinux.net/ Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/ Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry
Bug#184368: sematic error, 2.3.1 The package name
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Osamu Aoki wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 03:57:07PM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote: > > Package: debian-policy > > > > Section 2.3.1 says: > > "Package names must consist of lower case letters (a-z), digits (0-9), > > plus (+) and minus (-) signs, and periods (.)." > > > > It should say something like: > > "Package names must not consist of anything other than lower case letters > > (a-z), digits (0-9), plus (+) and minus (-) signs, and periods (.)." > > > > because it is not desirable, and not the current convention to make > > packages contain all of the items in the list. eg why force apt to have > > digits, plus and minus signs and periods. It would have to have a name > > like apt00+-.. to be valid. > > Please do not push pedantic argument too much :-) > I'll try not to. > Double negative expressions are error prone and difficult to understand > for non-native speakers. I think it is fine as is since the original > text uses "consist of" instead of "contain". > Perhaps, I still believe the meaning is that package names "must contain" each of the different characters listed. > BTW, I have never seen any package name starting any of "+", "-", or > ".", nor I have seen any package name with repeated ".". I guess common > sense rules. > A further part of 2.3.1 says: "They must be at least two characters long and must start with an alphanumeric character." Which excludes packages that start with any of "+", "-", or ".". Given the usual meanings of ".", I don't think it would be likely to see ".." in any package name. I do not see how having a package name with ".." in it goes against common sense rules, but I do see how it would be unlikely to have a good argument for having it. I like Julian's argument for inserting the word "only" into the sentence. It was an option that I considered but I was worried about confusion again. On reflection, it is a better sentence with "only". Drew Daniels
Bug#184507: 2.3.9.1 grammar
Package: debian-policy 2.3.9.1 Prompting in maintainer scripts says: "Prompting may be accomplished by hand, or by communicating with a program, such as debconf, which conforms to the Debian Configuration management specification, version 2 or higher." The grammar is ambiguous and "by hand" is vague. By hand should be defined and it should be specified whether "communicating with a program" should conform "to the Debian Configuration management specification, version 2 or higher." Perhaps "by hand" could be changed to "directly". The grammar could be fixed by one of the following: "communicating with a program (which conforms to the Debian Configuration management specification, version 2 or higher), such as debconf." "communicating with a program, such as debconf (which conforms to the Debian Configuration management specification, version 2 or higher)." I am unsure as to which one is correct. Technically two bugs, but I think the difference is trivial. If not, a clone is easy enough. Drew Daniels
Bug#184518: footnote 6
Package: debian-policy Severity: minor Footnote 6 says: "4% of Debian packages [see Debconf stats] currently use debconf" Two minor bugs, but should I really bother submitting different bug reports? http://kitenet.net/programs/debconf/stats/ says: "Whups, you want to go here. " and points to http://auric.debian.org/~joeyh/debconf-stats/ http://auric.debian.org/~joeyh/debconf-stats/data says: 03/12/2003,780, 12269 Which is roughly 6.3574863477055994783600945472329. 6% is currently more accurate than 4%. Debian Policy Manual version 3.5.9.0 was created on 2003-03-07. (according to the bottom of the TOC). On that date the data says: 03/07/2003,783, 12281 Which is roughly 6.3757023043726080938034362022637, slightly higher. I recommend if such a statistic is to be kept, it should be flagged and updated upon revision of the document. (I know 2% is within "roughly", that's why I set the severity to minor.) Drew Daniels
Bug#184521: 2.4.3 exaggeration of bad Makefile edits
Package: debian-policy Severity: minor 2.4.3 says: "This makes it impossible for someone else to later reconfigure the package." This is an incorrect statement and is likely an intentional exaggeration. A statement like: "This could make it very difficult for someone else to later reconfigure the package." is true and keeps an emphasis on the fact that it's a bad idea. I replaced "makes" with "could make" and "impossible" with "very difficult". The "very" was thrown in for emphasis. Drew Daniels
Bug#184507: 2.3.9.1 grammar
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 02:06:05PM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote: > Package: debian-policy > 2.3.9.1 Prompting in maintainer scripts says: > "Prompting may be accomplished by hand, or by communicating with a > program, such as debconf, which conforms to the Debian Configuration > management specification, version 2 or higher." > The grammar is ambiguous Common sense makes the resolution of this purported ambiguity pretty clear. If you lack common sense, then working on Debian is probably not for you. If the spec were not part of the requirement, why bother mentioning it? and "by hand" is vague. Hmm, on the one hand, I want to agree with you, but on the other hand, this excessive nitpicking is starting to drive me up the wall. Consider it an intelligence test. If you can't figure it out, then a) stick with debconf or b) go find something less challenging to do in your spare time. :) -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra-osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico-to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
Bug#184507: 2.3.9.1 grammar
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Chris Waters wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 02:06:05PM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote: > > Package: debian-policy > > > 2.3.9.1 Prompting in maintainer scripts says: > > "Prompting may be accomplished by hand, or by communicating with a > > program, such as debconf, which conforms to the Debian Configuration > > management specification, version 2 or higher." > > > The grammar is ambiguous > > Common sense makes the resolution of this purported ambiguity pretty > clear. If you lack common sense, then working on Debian is probably > not for you. If the spec were not part of the requirement, why bother > mentioning it? > Oops, I guess I looked too hard. > and "by hand" is vague. > > Hmm, on the one hand, I want to agree with you, but on the other hand, > this excessive nitpicking is starting to drive me up the wall. > Consider it an intelligence test. If you can't figure it out, then a) > stick with debconf or b) go find something less challenging to do in > your spare time. :) > I agree that this does seem like nitpicking, but they are valid points. Perhaps I should accumulate a bunch of these "nits" and make them into one "bug". ;-) I'm reading the document thoroughly to prepare myself for entering the new maintainers process. Since I'm reading debian-policy anyway, I figured the document couldn't hurt having a little polish put on it. I'm enjoying reading the document and checking it's semantics. I could omit bug reports or combine them, but since I'm going so slowly and throughly I figured I'd file bugs as I saw errors, almost one at a time. My intelligence tells me that if "by hand" is not replaced then technically I can file "serious" bugs against packages that do not use "hand" or debconf. My intelligence also tells me that filing such bugs would not be looked on favorably. I come to the conclusion that perhaps policy "should" be fixed. Arguments to fix such minor bugs should not need to get long. I understand the annoyance that could come with for example filing a bug against many misspelled words instead of filing one bug listing them all. These bugs that I'm filing are mostly of different types and if I understand correctly bugs should be filed for each issue individually. I do not intend to get on anyones nerves, but I would like to see these small changes made. I believe that the best solution is therefore for me to stop filing normal to minor bugs about semantics, grammar, spelling etc and file them in one large bug I haven't finished reading the document thoroughly, but I think I will be filing some good wishlist bugs for policy addition. Some of my wishlist ideas seem like common sense to me, but I see that they're ignored. My point being that just because something seems like common sense, doesn't mean that everyone knows enough to follow it. Ie, I will still file bugs against debian-policy for semantics, grammar, spelling etc unless I am asked not to (although now, probably only one more if any). Sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused. Drew Daniels
Re: Bug#184507: 2.3.9.1 grammar
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Drew Scott Daniels wrote: > Since I'm reading debian-policy > anyway, I figured the document couldn't hurt having a little polish put on > it. I'm enjoying reading the document and checking it's semantics. But not its punctuation, I hope. > I believe that the best solution is therefore for me to stop > filing normal to minor bugs about semantics, grammar, spelling etc and file > them in one large bug Sounds OK to me. > Ie, .. or even I.e., > I will still file bugs > against debian-policy for semantics, grammar, spelling etc .. or even etc. > unless I am > asked not to (although now, probably only one more if any). Please don't give up. There is still an ENORMOUS amount of work to be done on all documentation in the way of 'tidying up' grammar, spelling, semantics, etc. Just make sure you have a good idea of what these *should* be before you begin. Regards from another nit-picker, -- Martin Wheeler - StarTEXT / AVALONIX - Glastonbury - BA6 9PH - England [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://startext.demon.co.uk/ GPG pub key : 8D6B948B ECC6 D98E 4CC8 60E3 7E32 D594 BB27 3368 8D6B 948B - Share your knowledge. It's a way of achieving immortality. -
