Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not sure that the last bit really applies to Gnulib, and I'm not
> sure it's easily measured. I'm inclined to leave it off and just go
> with this:
I have applied this version of the wording to my Policy arch repository.
> --- orig/policy.sgml
> ++
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This has the unfortunate property of excluding Gnulib, which is a
> library of code explicitly designed by the GNU build system folks to
> live alongside the Autotools and be copied into packages to provide
> replacements for missing functions. Perhaps so
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Colin Watson writes:
>> Gnulib in fact provides a number of other useful utility functions as
>> well as simply replacement functions (e.g. xmalloc, xasprintf,
>> compile_csharp_using_pnet, execute_java_class) so this assumption may
>> well not be correct.
Colin Watson writes ("Bug#392362: [PROPOSAL] Add should not embed code from
other packages"):
> Gnulib in fact provides a number of other useful utility functions as
> well as simply replacement functions (e.g. xmalloc, xasprintf,
> compile_csharp_using_pnet, execute_
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 06:26:17PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 05:08:49PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > This has the unfortunate property of excluding Gnulib, which is a
> > library of code explicitly designed by the GNU build system folks to
> > live alongside the Autot
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 05:08:49PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> This has the unfortunate property of excluding Gnulib, which is a
> library of code explicitly designed by the GNU build system folks to
> live alongside the Autotools and be copied into packages to provide
> replacements for missing f
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 09:02:43PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Okay, here's yet another try at the wording for this that tries to exclude
> Autotools and friends without making the wording too awkward.
> Word-smithing welcome (as are any other comments).
>
> --- orig/policy.sgml
> +++ mod/policy.
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 09:02:43PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Okay, here's yet another try at the wording for this that tries to
>> exclude Autotools and friends without making the wording too awkward.
>> Word-smithing welcome (as are any other comme
On pe, 2007-11-30 at 11:59 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 09:02:43PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Okay, here's yet another try at the wording for this that tries to exclude
> > Autotools and friends without making the wording too awkward.
> > Word-smithing welcome (as are
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 09:02:43PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Okay, here's yet another try at the wording for this that tries to exclude
> Autotools and friends without making the wording too awkward.
> Word-smithing welcome (as are any other comments).
I am not objecting to this wording, but I
Okay, here's yet another try at the wording for this that tries to exclude
Autotools and friends without making the wording too awkward.
Word-smithing welcome (as are any other comments).
--- orig/policy.sgml
+++ mod/policy.sgml
@@ -2077,6 +2077,32 @@
the file to the list in debian/files
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I find the wording "convenience copy of library from other software
> packages" much more telling than "convenience copy of code from other
> software packages" that could be misinterpreted. For example, a lot of
> packages include a convenience copy of
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 11:57:18PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 12:22:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Perhaps "common code" or "duplicated code" instead of "shared code", to
> > > avoid ambiguity wrt shared libraries?
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 12:08:04AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> --- orig/policy.sgml
> +++ mod/policy.sgml
> @@ -2077,6 +2077,30 @@
> the file to the list in debian/files.
>
>
> +
> + Convenience copies of code
> +
> +
> + Some software packages include in
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 12:22:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Perhaps "common code" or "duplicated code" instead of "shared code", to
>>> avoid ambiguity wrt shared libraries?
>> How about "duplicated code
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 12:22:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Perhaps "common code" or "duplicated code" instead of "shared code", to
> > avoid ambiguity wrt shared libraries?
>
> How about "duplicated code"? New patch:
I have 2 comments about
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 12:22:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Perhaps "common code" or "duplicated code" instead of "shared code", to
> > avoid ambiguity wrt shared libraries?
> How about "duplicated code"? New patch:
Looks good to me.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever lo
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perhaps "common code" or "duplicated code" instead of "shared code", to
> avoid ambiguity wrt shared libraries?
How about "duplicated code"? New patch:
--- orig/policy.sgml
+++ mod/policy.sgml
@@ -2077,6 +2077,30 @@
the file to the list in
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 01:00:39AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> +
> + Having multiple copies of the same code in Debian is
> + inefficient, often creates either static linking or shared
> + library conflicts, and, most importantly, increases the
> + difficulty
Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 08:36:51AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Some software packages include in their distribution convenience
>> copies of libraries from other software packages, generally so that
>> users compiling from source don't have
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 03:43:14PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> This is one of the things that was discussed at the Policy BoF at DebConf,
> and Manoj and I would both like to start adding it. In the future, we'll
> be doing so in a new format that allows rationale to be tagged separately
> and ma
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 08:36:51AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Something like:
>
> Some software packages include in their distribution convenience
> copies of libraries from other software packages, generally so that
> users compiling from source don't have to download multiple pa
Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 01:59:58PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 05:33:53PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Two comments:
>
> 1) "this library is already packaged in Debian":
> If it is not packaged, it should be packaged instead of using the
> conv
On Tuesday 26 June 2007 18:15:47 Neil McGovern wrote:
> Great :) Not sure if these changes need re-seconding now though.
well, if there's any possibility that they do, consider them re-seconded :)
sean
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How's this version? (attached)
> Neil
> --
> * hermanr feels like a hedgehog having sex...
> --- policy.sgml 2006-10-11 08:44:02.684306000 +0100
> +++ policy.sgml 2007-06-26 13:58:10.160026885 +0100
> @@ -2105,6 +2105,19 @@
> the f
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 04:54:31PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
Updated :)
> 1) "this library is already packaged in Debian":
Removed
> 2) "Optionally ... should not" seems internally inconsistent.
Changed to:
> "Preferably,... should not"
> But I certainly lift my objection.
>
Great :) Not s
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 01:59:58PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 05:33:53PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Any suggestions for improved wording?
> >
> --- policy.sgml 2006-10-11 08:44:02.684306000 +0100
> +++ policy.sgml 2007-06-26 13:58:10.160026885 +0100
>
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 05:33:53PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Any suggestions for improved wording?
>
> If this is that what you want, then I will certainly not object, but the
> current draft seems to imply something else. Especially the expected
> meaning of package does not seems to capt
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 02:02:21PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:27:43PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 03:59:12PM +0200, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> > > I second Neil's proposal from Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:49:58, i.e. the
> > > latest version.
> >
>
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:27:43PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 03:59:12PM +0200, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> > I second Neil's proposal from Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:49:58, i.e. the
> > latest version.
>
> and I have to object to it because the proposal seems to mix build-time
>
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 03:59:12PM +0200, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> I second Neil's proposal from Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:49:58, i.e. the
> latest version.
and I have to object to it because the proposal seems to mix build-time
and run-time dependencies. At least I did not get an answer to my later
pos
I second Neil's proposal from Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:49:58, i.e. the
latest version.
Stefan
pgp89ONN0IXjc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Chris Waters wrote:
> > We want to avoid packages shipping their own versions of libraries,
> > as then if a security problem or major bug is discovered in that
> > library, we have lots of packages to update, and there's no garuntee
> > we'll even know which packages it affects.
>
> I don't know
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Chris Waters wrote:
> "Should not" says that it's always a bug--just not an RC bug. I'm
> saying that perhaps sometimes it's not a bug. Although I strongly
> agree that it should _usually_ be a bug.
I really can't imagine when it would not be a bug; in some cases, it
may just
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 09:13:11PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 11:57:47AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > I don't know if it can always be avoided.
> [snip lots of good examples where this is unavoidable]
> > I would go for strongly discouraging the practice, but I think t
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 11:57:47AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 11:24:22AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
>
> > We want to avoid packages shipping their own versions of libraries,
> > as then if a security problem or major bug is discovered in that
> > library, we have lots of
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 11:24:22AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> We want to avoid packages shipping their own versions of libraries,
> as then if a security problem or major bug is discovered in that
> library, we have lots of packages to update, and there's no garuntee
> we'll even know which pac
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 12:04:20PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 10:44:10AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > > > +
> > > > + Embedding code provided in other packages
> > > > +
> > > > + A package should not embed or include code from other
> > > > +
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Bill Allombert wrote:
> I am not sure we can realistically add a requirement higher than:
>
> A package should not link against copy of libraries packaged
> separately by Debian.
Any needless code duplication is bad, be it in libraries, perl or
python modules, or e
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 12:04:20PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 10:44:10AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > > > +
> > > > + Embedding code provided in other packages
> > > > +
> > > > + A package should not embed or include code from other
> > > > +
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 10:44:10AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > > +
> > > + Embedding code provided in other packages
> > > +
> > > + A package should not embed or include code from other
> > > + packages. Instead, the package should be modified to reference the
> > > +
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 09:49:58AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> --- policy.sgml
> +++ policy.sgml
> @@ -2105,6 +2105,14 @@
> the file to the list in debian/files.
>
>
> +
> + Embedding code provided in other packages
> +
> + A package should not embed or inclu
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 11:16:47AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 09:49:58AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > --- policy.sgml
> > +++ policy.sgml
> > @@ -2105,6 +2105,14 @@
> > the file to the list in debian/files.
> >
> >
> > +
> > + Embedding code p
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 05:30:10PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 11:45:39AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > I'm including a patch that adds a should not to policy.
> >
>
> Now updated, removed C-ism and fix some typos.
>
And this time *with* the patch...
Neil
--
* herm
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 11:45:39AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> I'm including a patch that adds a should not to policy.
>
Now updated, removed C-ism and fix some typos.
I'm not sure we can say libraries instead of files, as some programs
embed bits of libraries, instead of the whole lot. Which
On 10804 March 1977, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Title:Embedding code provided in other packages
> Synopsis: Packages should not include or embed code that is available in
> other packages.
> Rationale:If a package contains embeded code, it becomes vulnerab
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.2
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Hi all,
I'm including a patch that adds a should not to policy.
Title: Embedding code provided in other packages
Synopsis: Packages should not include or embed code that is available in
47 matches
Mail list logo
