Bug#587279: libnautilus-extension1: breaks nautilus-share upgrade from lenny
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:27:00PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bill Allombert writes: > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:44:43PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: > > >> Bill, so far you're the only one in #587279 objecting to the > >> clarification making the what-you-call "strange interpretation" crystal > >> clear (and following the way it was always handled). > > > Nobody in #587279 is saying that the text is ambiguous. This precisely > > why a policy change was proposed in the first place. > > I've always interpreted the current text to mean what the proposed change > says that it should mean, namely that non-default alternatives are okay > but the package cannot depend only on a non-free package. That's why I > originally was going to commit this as an informative change, since I > didn't think it was a normative change from the previous version of > Policy. Part of the problem is what happens when the free alternative is not installable. I read this as a technical device to ensure that Debian conforms to SC1: "we will never make the system depend on an item of non-free software". > I believed that because that's what Debian has done for as long as I've > been involved in it, so I always assumed that was the intended meaning. I do not know that. I never found more than a handful of packages that violated this and I always reported bugs to them. I do not believe that, given the small number of packages and developers involved, it is fair to say that "Debian has done" it. Cheers, -- Bill. Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101122095138.gj16...@yellowpig
Bug#587279: libnautilus-extension1: breaks nautilus-share upgrade from lenny
On Montag, 22. November 2010, Bill Allombert wrote: > Part of the problem is what happens when the free alternative is not > installable. then the package becomes rc-buggy just like when it stops to compile. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#604397: debian-policy: build-arch and build-indep targets are required
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:45:28AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Roger Leigh , 2010-11-21, 21:38: >> I'd like to propose that build-arch and build-indep be changed in >> Policy from "may be provided" to "must be provided" in preparation >> for enabling their use. We've wanted to fix the root problem for >> at least half a decade, and I'd like to get it done for wheezy. > > The only source packages that could possibly benefit from > build/build-arch/build-indep separation are those which build at least > one arch:all package and at least one non-arch:all package. How about > making the additional target obligatory only for them? If I calculated > correctly that would reduce number of source packages affected by this > transition from ~15K to ~2K. That would make sense. However, it should be noted that current Policy requires binary-arch and binary-indep irrespective of if any arch or indep packages are built, and it would be consistent to require the same of the corresponding build targets. >> This should probably also be accompanied by a new lintian check which >> can warn if these rules are missing. > > I think we should be changing policy only after the lintian check is > implement and the majority of packages are fixed. OK. Just for the record, I've implemented support in debhelper's dh command in #604563. Once applied, this will automatically add support to the huge chunk of the archive using "tiny" rules files. cdbs will be next on my list. These two combined are, by a crude estimate, grepping the lintian lab, approximately 50% of the total. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `-GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
