Bug#872944: #872944 www.debian.org: Remove JavaScript from Policy Manual published on web mirrors

[Bill Allombert]

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 09:33:50PM +0200, Holger Wansing wrote:
> Hello www team and debian-policy editor team,
> 
> Note: apparently we have no alternative beside js, if we want full-text 
> search for html output (single-page html could be a possible way, but 
> that output format has been disabled due to various other issues).

Sorry, but why is this so hard to generate a single-page html ?
debiandoc could do it. Using the browser intra-page search is always much
easier/faster that using a search box.

Cheers,
Bill.

Bug#877337: single-page html of debian-policy to be revived?

[Bill Allombert]

On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 10:15:19AM +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Mon 15 Apr 2024 at 09:59am GMT, Holger Levsen wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Apr 14, 2024 at 08:43:51PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> >> ... but if dev-ref is already shipping both, maybe singlepage is indeed
> >> usable these days ...
> >
> > I think it is.
> >
> >> > Could the Policy Editors team check, if everything is fine now, and if
> >> > this should be published again?
> >> > At least there is still an issue with the footnotes, there are 16 
> >> > occurrences
> >> > of #id1 for example... (search for "[1]" in policy-1.html).
> >> Hrm.  That seems like a pretty serious problem :\
> >
> > I wouldnt call it serious. annoying yes, maybe.
> >
> >> Holger L., did you know about this issue?
> >> Did you decide it was worth publishing anyway?
> >
> > yes.
> >
> > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#how-could-installing-a-package-into-testing-possibly-break-other-packages
> > or (single page)
> > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/developers-reference.en.html#how-could-installing-a-package-into-testing-possibly-break-other-packages
> > both show four footnotes, right where they belong, it's just that
> > each foot note is numbered and that [1] or [2] or whatever is
> > a link, pointing to a wrong place.
> >
> > I agree it's a bug, but I do think it's a pretty harmless one.
> 
> Thanks.  I'd be grateful for some feedback from other regular Policy
> contributors.

My view is that any issue with single-page is much more likely to be fixed if
we use it than if we do not.

I note that the links from the text to the footnotes are correct, it is only 
the backlink from the
footnotes to the text which are wrong. I consider this minor.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

db.debian.org/machines.cgi is not up to date

[Bill Allombert]

Hello,

http://db.debian.org/machines.cgi is not up to date, especially
the status field is often wrong:
debussy is down, faure seems in bad shape, lully not better, etc...

How this data is updated ? Are there ways we can help ?
Also, it would be useful to have SSH host key fingerprint under the key.

(off-topic: does voltaire have really dchroot or not ??)
Cheers,

--
Bill  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please CC)

Bug#155283: http://www.debian.org/misc/README.mirrors is not translated/able.

[Bill Allombert]

Package: www.debian.org
Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-03
Severity: wishlist

Hello WWW team,
 
I got several strange complaints from French people that "Debian website is not
translated" which is completely false. Each time the culprit was this pages:
 
http://www.debian.org/misc/README.mirrors
http://www.debian.org/misc/README.non-US
 
which are not translated.
 
It seems the problem is that infrastructure does not allow to translate this
files.
 
What could be done to fix that ?
 
Cheers,
 
Bill.


-- System Information
Debian Release: 2.2
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux yellowpig 2.2.19 #1 Tue Apr 24 20:02:21 CEST 2001 i686

-- 
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  FHS 5.3: As of the date of this release of the standard, system crash were
  not supported under Linux. 

Re: Bug#879048: Bug#876075: Anchors are non-unique in the single-HTML version

[Bill Allombert]

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 01:37:11PM +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> On Mon, Dec 25 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 
> > I'm not sure where we landed with this, but it feels like the
> > single-HTML output from Sphnix is kind of broken, and publishing that
> > on the web site has caused various problems.  I'm not sure how to get
> > to the multi-page version on www.debian.org, and indeed the anchors
> > and table of contents in Policy are not working right now on the web
> > site because of this problem.
> >
> > I feel like the single-page HTML version may have been a failed
> > experiment, at least pending further work on Sphinx, and we should
> > just publish the multi-page version.  What do other people think?
> > (Adding debian-www for their opinion as well.)
> >
> > Not having working footnotes feels to me like kind of a showstopper.
> 
> It's been sixty days since I reported one of these bugs upstream and
> there has been no response from upstream.  So I think it is time to undo
> our failed experiment.
> 
> We have a choice between dropping policy-1.html altogether, or instead
> switching the www.debian.org copy to use the multi-page version and not
> modifying the debian-policy package.
> 
> We have three separate bugs (see Cc header) about the singlepage output:
> the gap in quality between singlepage and multipage is rather wide.  So
> I am favour of dropping policy-1.html altogether.  I just don't think
> it's good enough to include in our package.  Further, now that
> policy.txt.gz has proper section numbering again, it can replace a lot
> of the uses that there were for policy-1.html.
> 
> Any objections to dropping singlepage html output completely, until a
> future date at which Sphinx upstream has improved it?

If you do that, then do not close the bugs related to policy-1.html
because they will still be valid, and report a bug 'policy-1.html is
missing'.

The policy-1.html has the nice property that it is easy to search the
whole document.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Re: Bug#876075: Bug#879048: Bug#876075: Anchors are non-unique in the single-HTML version

[Bill Allombert]

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 03:01:51PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 01:37:11PM +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > Hello all,
> > 
> > On Mon, Dec 25 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm not sure where we landed with this, but it feels like the
> > > single-HTML output from Sphnix is kind of broken, and publishing that
> > > on the web site has caused various problems.  I'm not sure how to get
> > > to the multi-page version on www.debian.org, and indeed the anchors
> > > and table of contents in Policy are not working right now on the web
> > > site because of this problem.
> > >
> > > I feel like the single-page HTML version may have been a failed
> > > experiment, at least pending further work on Sphinx, and we should
> > > just publish the multi-page version.  What do other people think?
> > > (Adding debian-www for their opinion as well.)
> > >
> > > Not having working footnotes feels to me like kind of a showstopper.
> > 
> > It's been sixty days since I reported one of these bugs upstream and
> > there has been no response from upstream.  So I think it is time to undo
> > our failed experiment.
> > 
> > We have a choice between dropping policy-1.html altogether, or instead
> > switching the www.debian.org copy to use the multi-page version and not
> > modifying the debian-policy package.
> > 
> > We have three separate bugs (see Cc header) about the singlepage output:
> > the gap in quality between singlepage and multipage is rather wide.  So
> > I am favour of dropping policy-1.html altogether.  I just don't think
> > it's good enough to include in our package.  Further, now that
> > policy.txt.gz has proper section numbering again, it can replace a lot
> > of the uses that there were for policy-1.html.
> > 
> > Any objections to dropping singlepage html output completely, until a
> > future date at which Sphinx upstream has improved it?
> 
> If you do that, then do not close the bugs related to policy-1.html
> because they will still be valid, and report a bug 'policy-1.html is
> missing'.

Maybe it sound harsher than what I wanted to say.
I have no problem with policy-1.html to be dropped as a stop-gap
measure. However this is not a good long term solution. If sphynx cannot
do it then we should consider a better technology. 

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Bug#877367: Bug #877367: www.debian.org: Please consider adding redirects for old Policy chapters/appendices

[Bill Allombert]

On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 09:54:07AM +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Laura,
> 
> On Wed, Jan 03 2018, Sean Whitton wrote:
> 
> > In #876075, we are considering dropping singlehtml output from the
> > debian-policy package.  There are numerous other bugs -- such as all
> > footnote hyperlinks being broken -- and upstream sphinx seems to focus
> > their efforts on the multi-page output, which is much better quality.
> >
> > I think we need to resolve that discussion before we can respond to
> > your request for feedback in your message quoted above.  Either way we
> > are going to need redirects, but it's not yet clear which.
> 
> We have now decided to drop singlehtml output, i.e., drop policy-1.html.
> It is just too buggy and we don't want to continue including it in the
> Debian archive.
> 
> Could you switch the web mirrors to use the multipage version, please?
> Then I can drop the file from our releases.
> 
> If Sphinx upstream improves the singlehtml output sufficiently that we
> decide to include it in our package again, I don't think we'd want to
> change the web mirrors again.

Why we would not want that ?

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Bug#1060163: packages.debian.org should offer https links to binaries

[Bill Allombert]

Package: www.debian.org
Severity: normal

Dear packages.d.o team,

Binary download pages like this one:
https://packages.debian.org/bookworm/all/nlohmann-json3-dev/download
only offer http links to packages and not https links.

firefox flags downloading binaries through http links as dangerous

Hopefully most mirrors should support https download now.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Re: Bug#640737: [copyright-format] misc. changes from driver.

[Bill Allombert]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 09:31:47AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:08:14AM +0200, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> > 
> > I have commited this change.
> > 
> >   * copyright-format: remove drivers from abstract and useless appendix
> > Wording: Lars Wirzenius 
> > Seconded: Charles Plessy 
> > Seconded: Jakub Wilk 
> > 
> > Thanks for your contribution.
> > 
> > Do you want me to release debian-policy 3.9.3.0 now, or should I wait for
> > more DEP-5 related changes ?
> 
> Thanks, Bill.
> 
> I think that we need to resolve #640737 first.  The most frequently proposed
> URL, ‘http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/’ (with
> the slash at the end) looks safe, but I would feel more comfortable if we had
> more feedback on both the debian-policy and debian-www lists.  I note by the
> way that lintian 2.5.3 has the following regular expression in its checks:
> 
> ^http://www\.debian\.org/doc/(?:packaging-manuals/)?copyright-format/(\d+\.\d+)$

I do not see any policy-related objection. I hope the debian-www team can 
confirm
that this URL is available.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110926154812.GB22822@yellowpig

ppc64 not on packages.debian.org

[Bill Allombert]

Dear WWW team,

Any reason ppc64 is not listed on packages.debian.org ?
Other unofficial ports are listed. For example see


Cheers,
Bill.
(Please CC me)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130915110508.GA15857@yellowpig

Re: ppc64 not on packages.debian.org

[Bill Allombert]

On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 08:48:17PM +0200, Simon Paillard wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 01:05:08PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Any reason ppc64 is not listed on packages.debian.org ?
> 
> There is a lot of hardcoding (inclusing architecture configuration) at too 
> many
> places in packages.d.o...
> 
> > Other unofficial ports are listed. For example see
> > <http://packages.debian.org/sid/bash>
> 
> I've updated all the debports archs:
> -avr32 armhf 
> +arm64 hppa ppc64 x32
> 
> It should be visible on packages.debian.org within 1 hour.

Yes it is listed now. Excellent, thanks !

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130915195252.GG15857@yellowpig

packages.d.o results for linux-image

[Bill Allombert]

Dear WWW team,

package.debian.org is reporting strange result for linux-image:
For example

only report linux-image-2.6-amd64

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130923144130.GC3303@yellowpig

Bug#173677: listarchives: The date link in the listing by authors link to authors!

[Bill Allombert]

Package: listarchives
Version: N/A; reported 2002-12-19
Severity: normal

Hello,
there is a strange bug in lists.debian.org:
Go to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2002/debian-policy-200212/author.html

and try the link [Date Index] : it link to author.html instead of
date.html!

 From the html source:


[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Subject Index]
[Other Debian Lists]
[http://www.debian.org/";>Debian Home]



Cheers,
Bill.

-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux yellowpig 2.2.19 #1 Tue Apr 24 20:02:21 CEST 2001 i686
Locale: LANG=french, LC_CTYPE=french

-- 
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Bug#16625: menu's new byhand files

[Bill Allombert]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 05:54:22PM +, James Troup wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Are these new byhand files absolutely necessary?  Given the age of
> this bug, I can only assume the web team have worked around whatever
> problem they're designed to solve (?) and adding byhand files just
> creates more work for us and more delays for the maintainer.

Sorry to not have answered sooner, I was in holydays.

It look like that Josip work around the need for byhand file and
--- Josip has stated he was neutral about them,
--- Joost did not care so far,
--- James is against them.

So I believe we can continue to work without them, so
I close this bug.

Apologize for the trouble to all the parties concerned.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Bug#211994: menu: but cmap.xpm back in the package

[Bill Allombert]

reassign 211994 www.debian.org
retitle please update online Menu Manual to current sid version
thanks

The menu manual at
http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/menu.html/c

is outdated (Feb 2002). Please update to the latest sid version.
Thanks in advance.

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 03:23:26PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 02:59:43PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 06:07:46PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
>  [ submit and first reply ] 
> > > The menu policy page still tell about the 24 colors,
> > > and how to convert to ( mogrify -format xmp  blabla -mcmap.xpm )
> > 
> > I believe I have removed that from the menu manual. Could you provide
> > me with the reference to where you saw this outdated text?
> 
> http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/menu.html/ch3.html#s3.4

OK I reassign this bug to www.debian.org. In the mean time
please read /usr/share/doc/menu/html instead.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

new Debian site popcon.debian.org

[Bill Allombert]

Hello Debian-www,

On behalf of the popularity-contest project, I would like to
announce that it is now a somewhat official Debian project, since it
is now hosted at <http://popcon.debian.org>.

Probably, it would be good idea to link it from the main Debian web site.

popularity-contest report info on the packages installed on machines
running Debian.  This information is for example used to make sure
the most popular packages are on the first CDs when making Debian CD
releases.  It also collect info about the architectures used.  Here
is the current distribution (1649 total):

   0.06% mips
   0.12% alpha
   0.49% sparc
   1.09% powerpc
  29.41% UNDEFINED (probably Woody, as that version do not report arch)
  68.82% i386

We would like to thanks Martin Michlmayr and James Troup for their
involvement in setting the new website.

Bill Allombert and Petter Reinholdtsen.


pgpLHr5t0SYzO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#248024: changelogs should have a Content-type: test/plain; charset=utf-8

[Bill Allombert]

Package: www.debian.org
Severity: minor

Hello,
packages.debian.org include link to the changelogs.  Those changelog are
plain text files, but according to policy are UTF-8 encoded.

Currently the web-server send 
Content-Type: text/plain
It should be fixed to send
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
instead, so that web-browser display it properly.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Imagine a large red swirl here.