Processed: Re: Bug#833169: dpkg-dev-el: debian/NEWS is loaded in debian-changelog-mode, which encourages lintian debian-news-entry-uses-asterisk complaints

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> block -1 by 905453
Bug #833169 [dpkg-dev-el] dpkg-dev-el: debian/NEWS is loaded in 
debian-changelog-mode, which encourages lintian debian-news-entry-uses-asterisk 
complaints
833169 was not blocked by any bugs.
833169 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 833169: 905453

-- 
833169: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=833169
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#904248: Beginnings of a patch to add netbase to build-essential

[Josh Triplett]

On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 10:09:17AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed 17 Oct 2018 at 01:47AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Which is a good argument for them not being in /etc.
> 
> Do we need to block this Policy change on moving these files out of
> /etc?

No, certainly not; that's unrelated.

I'm objecting to the idea of having netbase as build-essential, in
general, regardless of the location of its files.

Bug#904248: Beginnings of a patch to add netbase to build-essential

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

On Wed 17 Oct 2018 at 01:47AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:

> Which is a good argument for them not being in /etc.

Do we need to block this Policy change on moving these files out of
/etc?  Whether or not we need to block the Policy change on that seems
to be the main point of disagreement right now, though some are opposed
on principle.

My first thought is that such a move would take years and years for
only minimal benefit to Debian.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#911165: debian-policy: drop requirement to ship sysvinit init script with same name

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

On Wed 17 Oct 2018 at 10:28AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:

> One part of this section that seems valuable to rescue is:
>
> If you have an LSB (or "sysvinit") init script /etc/init.d/foo, and
> systemd unit(s) that are intended to be used instead of the LSB init
> script on systemd-booted systems, then the package must either include
> foo.service, or mask foo.service.
>
> (This is a consequence of how systemd's backwards compatibility for LSB
> init scripts is set up. It's a much simpler and easier requirement than
> the wording we used to have about how to make Upstart coexist with LSB
> init scripts, but it's still a requirement.)

Good point.  Do the relevant dh_ tools get this right, or might someone
packaging a straightforward daemon for the first time get it wrong in
their package?  If the latter, Policy could discuss it explicitly.

On Thu 18 Oct 2018 at 09:57PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:

> In my mind, the intent of the current policy language is to require an init
> script matching any .service units, not for .socket or .timer units.
> Perhaps the text should be refined to be systemd-specific instead of
> continuing to treat "alternate init systems" generically, and then call this
> out?

Yes, rewording the text to be in terms of systemd would be a big
improvement.  At the very least, it would reassure readers that the
Policy requirement to include an init script was not just outdated text
that did not take into account the changes to init systems that have
occurred in recent years.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#904248: Beginnings of a patch to add netbase to build-essential

[Mattia Rizzolo]

On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 10:09:17AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed 17 Oct 2018 at 01:47AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Which is a good argument for them not being in /etc.
> Do we need to block this Policy change on moving these files out of
> /etc?  Whether or not we need to block the Policy change on that seems
> to be the main point of disagreement right now, though some are opposed
> on principle.

I haven't counted them, but to me it feels like there is no consensus at
all.  Even one of the proposed (smvc) said that he is happier to see
pbuilder fix /etc/hosts than having netbase.  And with the presence of
people being actively against netbase in build essential then I'd say
this policy change can't go on at all…

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#776413: The priority of the ed package

[Sean Whitton]

Dear Ian,

On Tue 16 Oct 2018 at 11:49AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

> This makes it sound theoretical, or a question of breaking people's
> `finger macros'.  That is indeed annoying.  But there is a much more
> serious practical point, which Paul Hardy touches on.
>
> There are still situations, even in modern systems, where the terminal
> connection is limited to a serial line or equivalent.  In that
> situation full-screen editors tend to malfunction because they do not
> know the screen size (or, sometimes, terminal type).
> [...]

Could you copy these comments to the relevant Policy bugs, please?  They
will be relevant whenever someone decides to push those bugs forward.

#452393 and/or #776557.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: The priority of the ed package

[Sean Whitton]

Hello Lev,

On Tue 16 Oct 2018 at 12:56PM +0500, Lev Lamberov wrote:

> as suggested by Chris Lamb [suggestion], I'd like to request your input
> on #776413. It is concerned with the priority of the ed package. There
> are two conflicting requests. Some users request ed to have priority
> "optional", other users request it to be "important". Please, take a
> look at the discussion in the mentioned bug report (and also in the
> related one, #416585).
>
> [suggestion] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=776413#42
>
> Some time ago (see, #416585) the priority of the ed package has been
> changed to "optional", but ed is still a part of POSIX standard. For me
> personally the main issue here is the interpretation of "Unix-like" in
> the Debian Policy: "Important programs, including those which one would
> expect to find on any Unix-like system."

Raising this on the debian-policy list is certainly a good idea because
there are people on here who can offer useful input.

When it comes to the Policy Team itself and the Policy Changes Process,
ISTM there are two ways this could go:

- as package maintainers, you could interpret the current text of Policy
  yourself and just decide what the priority of the package should be,
  possibly using input from messages in this thread

  (speaking only for myself, admittedly as someone who has not yet had
  to deal seriously with any serial consoles or embedded systems, I find
  Ian's arguments convincing)

- if you want the Policy Team and Process to make this decision for you,
  you can set your bug as blocked by our bugs #452393 and/or #776557
  and/or other relevant bugs, as resolving those would be the way in
  which the Team and Process would offer official input on your
  decision.

HTH.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#904248: Beginnings of a patch to add netbase to build-essential

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

On Sat 20 Oct 2018 at 08:09PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:

> I haven't counted them, but to me it feels like there is no consensus at
> all.  Even one of the proposed (smvc) said that he is happier to see
> pbuilder fix /etc/hosts than having netbase.  And with the presence of
> people being actively against netbase in build essential then I'd say
> this policy change can't go on at all…

Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I thought there was consensus
that netbase should be added.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#906910: marked as done (debian-policy: Link to "Debian Installer internals manual" on Alioth is now broken)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 20 Oct 2018 19:49:07 +
with message-id 
and subject line Bug#906910: fixed in debian-policy 4.2.1.3
has caused the Debian Bug report #906910,
regarding debian-policy: Link to "Debian Installer internals manual" on Alioth 
is now broken
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
906910: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=906910
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.2.0.1
Severity: normal

Dear Maintainer,

 In policy/policy/ch-scope.rst

> udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) do
> not comply with all of the requirements discussed here. See the `Debian
> Installer internals
> manual `_ for
> more information about them.

 This link to d-i.alioth.debian.org is broken.
 I'm not sure where's the newest one...
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Source: debian-policy
Source-Version: 4.2.1.3

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
debian-policy, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.

A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 906...@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Sean Whitton  (supplier of updated debian-policy 
package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org)


-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 12:36:19 -0700
Source: debian-policy
Binary: debian-policy debian-policy-ja
Architecture: source
Version: 4.2.1.3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Policy Editors 
Changed-By: Sean Whitton 
Description:
 debian-policy - Debian Policy Manual and related documents
 debian-policy-ja - Debian Policy Manual and related documents (Japanese)
Closes: 906910
Changes:
 debian-policy (4.2.1.3) unstable; urgency=medium
 .
   * Update URI to d-i internals manual (Closes: #906910).
 Thanks to Holger Wansing for the patch.
   * Crosslink and deduplicate 4.9 and 10.1.
 These sections both include discussion of the verbosity of build logs
 and compiler warnings.
   * Add policy/definition.txt to .gitignore.
Checksums-Sha1:
 b4d43292167a2f40666ad4659cf104e4a3023f1c 2019 debian-policy_4.2.1.3.dsc
 e08ca7b8493b72a2dba9b332d7ee9421d1bf106b 528804 debian-policy_4.2.1.3.tar.xz
Checksums-Sha256:
 33c8e72013479043354b115df9eb1887b72e74a100c132eb1be9b5065801bf80 2019 
debian-policy_4.2.1.3.dsc
 af1bafee7f0129a7c32a1304238f28dc78277d3569913f62b4de48fffc0237a4 528804 
debian-policy_4.2.1.3.tar.xz
Files:
 68b02f258842e15562a64eea3e82c514 2019 doc optional debian-policy_4.2.1.3.dsc
 e70dfccdb1cd9f563e838936afbb4268 528804 doc optional 
debian-policy_4.2.1.3.tar.xz

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=ciLX
-END PGP SIGNATURE End Message ---

Processing of debian-policy_4.2.1.3_source.changes

[Debian FTP Masters]

debian-policy_4.2.1.3_source.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
  debian-policy_4.2.1.3.dsc
  debian-policy_4.2.1.3.tar.xz

Greetings,

Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)

debian-policy_4.2.1.3_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

[Debian FTP Masters]

Accepted:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 12:36:19 -0700
Source: debian-policy
Binary: debian-policy debian-policy-ja
Architecture: source
Version: 4.2.1.3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Policy Editors 
Changed-By: Sean Whitton 
Description:
 debian-policy - Debian Policy Manual and related documents
 debian-policy-ja - Debian Policy Manual and related documents (Japanese)
Closes: 906910
Changes:
 debian-policy (4.2.1.3) unstable; urgency=medium
 .
   * Update URI to d-i internals manual (Closes: #906910).
 Thanks to Holger Wansing for the patch.
   * Crosslink and deduplicate 4.9 and 10.1.
 These sections both include discussion of the verbosity of build logs
 and compiler warnings.
   * Add policy/definition.txt to .gitignore.
Checksums-Sha1:
 b4d43292167a2f40666ad4659cf104e4a3023f1c 2019 debian-policy_4.2.1.3.dsc
 e08ca7b8493b72a2dba9b332d7ee9421d1bf106b 528804 debian-policy_4.2.1.3.tar.xz
Checksums-Sha256:
 33c8e72013479043354b115df9eb1887b72e74a100c132eb1be9b5065801bf80 2019 
debian-policy_4.2.1.3.dsc
 af1bafee7f0129a7c32a1304238f28dc78277d3569913f62b4de48fffc0237a4 528804 
debian-policy_4.2.1.3.tar.xz
Files:
 68b02f258842e15562a64eea3e82c514 2019 doc optional debian-policy_4.2.1.3.dsc
 e70dfccdb1cd9f563e838936afbb4268 528804 doc optional 
debian-policy_4.2.1.3.tar.xz

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=ciLX
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


Thank you for your contribution to Debian.

Processed: block bug

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

> block 776413 by 776557
Bug #776413 [ed] Policy violation: ed priority "optional", should be "important"
776413 was not blocked by any bugs.
776413 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 776413: 452393 and 776557
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
776413: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=776413
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems