Package: debian-policy
Version: 2.5.0.0
Severity: wishlist
It would make a lot of sense if Manoj's proposal-submitting guidelines
were to be placed in the debian-policy package and referred to by the
policy (section 1.3). (And the guidelines should also be modified to
include Manoj's recent posti
On policy, Piotr Roszatycki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (That is, we should check whether /etc/rcN.d/{S,K}??script exists
> > where N is the current runlevel and start or stop the script
> > appropriately if it does -- see the rest of this bugreport for
> > details.)
> >
> > I second this propo
On debian-policy, Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is the status of accepted policy amendments which have not yet
> been incorporated into policy?
>
> In other words, is it OK to announce the move to FHS on
> -devel-announce so that developers can start making the necessary
> change
On debian-policy, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see so reason /usr/X11R6 has to continue to exist at all.
>
> /usr/{bin,include,lib}/X11/ is the canonical path with which to reach X
> stuff.
>
> Therefore,
> /usr/bin/X11 would be a symlink to /usr/bin (X11 -> .)
> /usr/inclu
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 34652 fixed
Bug#34652: Policy is not clear enough about nawk.
Severity set to `fixed'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Ian Jackson
(administrator, Debian bugs database)
> Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Does anyone expect there to be a nawk program? If so, this suggestion
> > is moot. If not, we can probably just do away with it.
>
> Debian currently has five nawk scripts:
>
> /usr/sbin/mk-accessdb and /usr/sbin/mk-relaydb in sharc
> /usr/doc/texmf/mkhtml.nawk in tet
> You retitled a bunch of things to ACCEPTED, but they are not changed
> in the policy manual itself. This is wrong, right?
According to Manoj's description of how he wants to use the BTS to
track policy proposals, when a consensus has been reached and the
discussion period ends with no objections
> > Like I said before, we can do away with that, and move everything into
> > /usr. But it will mean changing a heck of a lot of packages.
>
> This is actually less of a problem than you might think: many programs use
> imake (aka xmkmf) and for those a simple recompile will be enough.
>
> But
Dear Branden,
> I see so reason /usr/X11R6 has to continue to exist at all.
>
> /usr/{bin,include,lib}/X11/ is the canonical path with which to reach X
> stuff.
>
> Therefore,
> /usr/bin/X11 would be a symlink to /usr/bin (X11 -> .)
> /usr/include/X11 would become a regular directory
> /us
Brock Rozen wrote:
> Another important question: what about those who object to the proposal?
> Should they be formally recorded? And what happens with that? Should we
> require X number more seconders than objectors? (X should be the number
> above..and again, if it's 5-4 that something should pas
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> BTW, does somebody know why the old bugs are completely erased? Shouldn't
> they be left there for future reference? I mean all bug reports that were
> closed, not only policy bugs. Of course, the BTS would need a filter to
> handle this, and a few more commands.
Yes they
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to all of its recipients. The
following address(es) failed:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
generated |cat >>$home/Mail/test/foo:
"cat" command not found for address_pipe transport
-
On May 30, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Software depending on non-US (#37251)
> * Stalled for 1 week.
> * Proposed on 06 May 1999 by Marco d'Itri; seconded by Gordon
>Matzigkeit, Joseph Carter, Chris Waters and Davide G. M. Salvett.
> * Proposal to allow software that depends
On 30-May-99, 07:37 (CDT), Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Somebody mentioned another upcomming and more complete proposal by
> Wichert Akkerman in this area.
>
> I would like to see Wicherts proposal before rushing this proposal
> throug. I also understanded Fabien such that this w
> > [debhelper] should check whether the corresponding file exists under
> > /etc/rc?.d before starting them in postinst or stopping them in postrm.
>
> (That is, we should check whether /etc/rcN.d/{S,K}??script exists
> where N is the current runlevel and start or stop the script
> appropriately
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 21585 [PROPOSED] /etc/init.d/
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 37257
Bug#37257: [PROPOSED] libtool `.la' files in `-dev' packages
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> severity 37257 normal
Bug#37257: [PROPOSED] libtool `.la' files in `-dev' packages
Severity set to `normal'.
> forwarded 37257 debian-pol
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> merge 37251 37262
Bug#37251: [AMENDMENT 1999/05/06] Software depending on non-US
Bug#37262: software depending on non-US (was: Re: Hey! Why does everybody love
flaming so much? [was: `pure'])
Merged 37251 37262.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Pl
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 21820 emacsen-common
Bug#21820: [PROPOSED] bug in debian-emacs-policy.gz example script
Bug reassigned from package `debian-policy' to `emacsen-common'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Ian Jackson
I checked through the current version of policy, and FSSTND is
mentioned in several places. They all appear to be trivially
replaceable by the corresponding references to the FHS. For ease, it
would make sense not to refer to specific sections of the FHS where it
is possible to avoid this; this w
Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Does anyone expect there to be a nawk program? If so, this suggestion
> is moot. If not, we can probably just do away with it.
Debian currently has five nawk scripts:
/usr/sbin/mk-accessdb and /usr/sbin/mk-relaydb in sharc
/usr/doc/texmf/mkhtml.nawk in tetex-base
/usr/doc
I want to get in on this discussion when I have some time: there is an
important new package called wm-icons which I am hoping to package,
and it might have a significant affect on various parts of this
proposal. I just don't yet know.
Julian
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
If this needs seconding, I second it: the contact name listed in the
virtual-packages-list should certainly be
debian-policy@lists.debian.org, and it should maybe refer to the
proposal-submitting guidelines.
Julian
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ian Jackson wrote:
> I had cause to look in /etc/passwd recently, and found that several
> system accounts had inherited my gid, 100:
>
> sync:*:4:100:sync:/bin:/bin/sync
> games:*:5:100:games:/usr/games:
> man:*:6:100:man:/var/catman:
>
> I'm _almost_ certain that these weren't like that before
> Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If not, should we clearly write in policy that hardlinks to conffiles
> > should be avoided wherever possible?
Please could someone enlighten me about this proposal?
Julian
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
reassign 21820 emacsen-common
thanks
This is a simple bug in the example given at the end of
debian-emacs-policy. It has no bearing whatsoever on the emacs
policy, but may help to ensure that the install scripts or whatever
actually work! So I'm reassigning back to emacsen-common from
debian-pol
retitle 21585 [PROPOSED] /etc/init.d/
> [debhelper] should check whether the corresponding file exists under
> /etc/rc?.d before starting them in postinst or stopping them in postrm.
(That is, we should check whether /etc/rcN.d/{S,K}??script exists
where N is the current runlevel and start or stop the script
appropriately if it does -
What is the status of accepted policy amendments which have not yet
been incorporated into policy?
In other words, is it OK to announce the move to FHS on
-devel-announce so that developers can start making the necessary
changes to their packages?
Julian
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
OK, here is a brief summary of many of the bug reports currently open
against debian-policy. It doesn't include those which currently
appear on Joey's weekly policy summary list. If noone objects, I
propose that we should incorporate this information into Joey's list
(I'll help with that if wante
On Sun, May 30, 1999 at 02:07:42PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, May 30, 1999 at 05:03:26PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > But we should propose the move for FHS 2.1, IMO in the form of a single
> > addition like "The subdirectories under /usr/X11R6 may be symbolic links to
> > the
On Sun, May 30, 1999 at 05:03:26PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> But we should propose the move for FHS 2.1, IMO in the form of a single
> addition like "The subdirectories under /usr/X11R6 may be symbolic links to
> the corresponding subdirectories of /usr.".
I see so reason /usr/X11R6 has to
Branden writes:
> Maybe. I've long been mulling over the thought of moving X into /usr.
Hear, hear! I wanted this to happen in the fsstnd work that happened
during debian 0.93 but (as you vigilantly point out :) the disk size
problem at the time was to big a hurdle for most.
> Like I said befo
You retitled a bunch of things to ACCEPTED, but they are not changed
in the policy manual itself. This is wrong, right?
Wichert.
--
==
This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman.
E-Mai
> > Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > The bug:
> > > ===
> > >
> > > The /usr/doc/debian-policy/virtual-package-names-list.text.gz file says:
> > >
> > > awk Anything providing suitable /usr/bin/{awk,nawk}
> > >
> > > So: Is "nawk" an approved virtual package name or not? It app
I second this proposal with the "all" amendment.
Julian
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://www.debian.org/~jdg
I second this, and propose that the section should be reworded as
follows:
3.3.4. Boot-time initialisation
---
There used to be another directory, `/etc/rc.boot', which
contained scripts which were run once per machine boot. This has
been deprecated in
On Sun, 30 May 1999 at 14:05, Marcus Brinkmann wrote about "Re: Making sure...":
> > How many seconds should this require? 1 or 2?
>
> 2 IMHO. Manojs argument was that if a proposal doesn't even get the
> attention of two developers, what may it be worth?
I think two is an absolute minimum. It s
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let's Debian blow... gracefully!
> * Under discussion.
> * Proposed by Fabien Ninoles; seconded by Sean E. Perry, Edward
> Betts and Peter Makholm.
> * Creation of a sub-directory aside from main, contrib, non-free
> named data, that will hold
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 10:23:32PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > b) Formally seconded, and a time
> > table set for discussion (normally normal bug, titled [AMENDMENT
> > yy/mm/dd]
> > 10 days to a month)
>
> How many seconds should this require? 1 or 2?
2 IMHO.
> Package: ispell
> Version: 3.1.20-0.1
>
> This package
> Recommends: ispell-dictionary
> but no such virtual package exists in the
> virtual-package-names-list.text
> file in doc-debian_1.4-0.
>
> (Furthermore, AFAIK, there is no dictionary of English words.)
>
> Susan Kleinmann
I
I just checked the debian-policy pages of the BTS, and now understand
why Manoj has made his suggestions. Could we try to deal with some of
these open bug reports? I would guess that a lot of them could be
closed, but we will need to decide this.
Julian
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 37713 [ACCEPTED 1999/05/15] Separate menu policy (like virtual
> package list)
Bug#37713: [PROPOSED] separate menu policy (like virtual package list)
Changed bug title.
> severity 37713 normal
Bug#37713: [ACCEPTED 1999/05/15] Separate menu pol
retitle 37713 [ACCEPTED 1999/05/15] Separate menu policy (like virtual package
list)
severity 37713 normal
forwarded 37713 debian-policy@lists.debian.org
retitle 37338 [ACCEPTED 1999/05/04] Libtool archive (*.la) files in -dev'
packages
severity 37338 normal
forwarded 37338 debian-policy@lists.de
> I've been misunderstanding how the policy process is supposed to work. It
> turns out we have a lot more amendments than I thought.
>
> All amendments marked as accepted below should be marked in the BTS as
> forwarded - they are ready to become part of policy. All other amendments
> below are i
> make it an amendment. Trying to figure out if we have a consensus is the
> only hard part of posting these summaries - if someone thinks we have a
> consensus I encourage them to post that to the list so we don't have to rely
> on me to sense them.
OK, I know for next time!
Julian
=-=-=-=-=
On Fri, 28 May 1999 at 17:14, Joey Hess wrote about "weekly policy summary":
> Md5sum proposal
> * Under discussion.
> * Proposed on 17 May 1999 by Piotr Roszatycki; seconded by Peter S
> Galbraith, Brock Rozen and Christoph Lameter.
> * Require a md5ums file be present in all packages.
Your message dated Sat, 29 May 1999 23:26:46 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line no longer necessary
has caused the attached bug report 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
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> b) Formally seconded, and a time
> table set for discussion (normally normal bug, titled [AMENDMENT
> yy/mm/dd]
> 10 days to a month)
How many seconds should this require? 1 or 2?
> Should we keep the rejected proposals around in the BTS in
> state fi
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 08:06:13AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> Where should I install X11 binaries? In /usr/bin/X11 or
> /usr/X11R6/bin? If I have undestood this correctly, the idea is that
> /usr/bin/X11 points to the current X11 release, i.e., if X11R7 comes
> out, /usr/bin/X11 will
Hi,
You are correct in all points. However, this is not quie set
in stone. I think I mayu have sdome changes to offer, more in a
following message.
>>"Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Julian> I'm not sure I fully understand this. Can I try repeating it
Julian> an
Hi,
From the experiences we have had in tha last few months, I
have come to realize that there may be a better method of tracking
the progress of proposals in the BTS. (Note: these are proposed
procedures, not the ones we currently follow). I have tried to relate
all this to th
I've been misunderstanding how the policy process is supposed to work. It
turns out we have a lot more amendments than I thought.
All amendments marked as accepted below should be marked in the BTS as
forwarded - they are ready to become part of policy. All other amendments
below are items with 2
Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I'm not sure I fully understand this.
Well it looks like I've misunderstood parts of the process, leading to this
confusion. The page describing it isn't entirely clear to me.
> Can I try repeating it and you
> say if I am correct? I'm also not quite sure how your categori
Your message dated Sat, 29 May 1999 19:11:50 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line withdrawn
has caused the attached bug report 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
Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I guess that this last comment is the reason that this proposal has
> been marked as stalled.
Nah, I just mark things stalled if there's no discussion for a week and we
don't seem to have a consensus. It doesn't really mean anything. Don't read
too much into the policy weekl
On Sun, May 30, 1999 at 02:23:44AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I guess that this last comment is the reason that this proposal has
> been marked as stalled. I would suggest that we plan to adopt the FHS
> anyway, pating attention to the changes which will appear in FHS 2.1,
> as available in the
> Adopt the FHS in place of FSSTND (#37345)
> * Stalled.
> * Proposed on 09 May 99 by Julian Gilbey; seconded by Joseph Carter,
> Aaron Van Couwenberg and Marco d'Itri.
> * Modify policy to require use of the FHS, with possible exceptions.
> ( A new version of the FHS is out, that doe
I'm not sure I fully understand this. Can I try repeating it and you
say if I am correct? I'm also not quite sure how your categories and
Joey's (amendments, consensus, active proposals and stalled proposals)
match up.
Original pre-formal discussion period:
Subject: [PROPOSAL] blah blah
Se
59 matches
Mail list logo
