Bug#412634: 5.6.17 (Urgency) should list emergency, maybe a normative list?

usertags 412634 =normative wording thanks Here is a proposed patch to put a normative list of supported Urgency values into Policy and to reconcile the two different informative lists currently there by removing the footnote in the changelog section and having that section simply defer to the Urge

Bug#431814: Source field of .changes files may contain a version number

Package: debian-policy Version: 3.7.2.2 Severity: wishlist Per recent mail from Guillem Jover, the version number is also added to the Source field of .changes files for binNMUs. This change was made in dpkg 1.13.22 and is therefore currently in stable. dak also now supports it. This diff attem

Bug#431813: support for wrapped Uploaders should now be mandatory

Package: debian-policy Version: 3.7.2.2 Severity: wishlist Now that etch has released, the dpkg in stable supports unwrapping a wrapped Uploaders field in debian/control. This fix was made in dpkg 1.13.14, uploaded to experimental on 2006-02-12. Accordingly, we can now elevate the should support

Debian policy bug triage

It's remarkably hard to find BTS usertags documentation. I spent several hours this afternoon going through every open bug against debian-policy and taking a first pass at classification vaguely according to the new Policy process that Manoj proposed at DebConf. The tagging should at this point b

Processed: user-tagging policy bugs

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tags 328951 -patch Bug#328951: Clarification for difference between Build-Depends and Build-Depends-Indep (Section 7.6) Tags were: patch Tags removed: patch > severity 401173 wishlist Bug#401173: base-file: include more licences in /usr/share/common-l

Bug#241333: policy mentions that changelogs should be utf-8; this is a bug

* Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070704 20:05]: > I think it may be time to talk to the release time about making non-UTF-8 > changelog or control files RC. Maybe we can finally put this transition > to bed for lenny (and upgrade Policy correspondingly to a must). I doubt I'd like another clas

Processed: tagging 413575

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.4 > tags 413575 pending Bug#413575: [ACCEPTED] debian-policy: New virtual package: dictd-dictionary There were no tags set. Tags added: pending > End of message, stopping processing here

Bug#413575: [ACCEPTED] debian-policy: New virtual package: dictd-dictionary

There seems to be a consensus around this and I don't see any problems, so I'm committing the following to my arch repository. --- orig/virtual-package-names-list.txt +++ mod/virtual-package-names-list.txt @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ AUTHORITATIVE LIST OF VIRTUAL PACKAGE NAMES -

Bug#392362: [PROPOSAL] Add should not embed code from other packages

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

Re: Source version in .changes

Hi, On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 00:49:13 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Magnus Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Section 5.6.1 of the DPM states: > > "In a main source control information, a .changes or a .dsc file this may > > contain only the name of the source package. > > In the control f

Bug#420701: GFDL is now in common-licenses

Giacomo A Catenazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think we should add also the license version in the first paragraph, > as is stated in the second part, not to confuse users. > + license, the GNU GPL (v. 2), the GNU LGPL (v. 2 and v. 2.1), and > the GNU FDL should refer > + to the

Bug#392362: [PROPOSAL] Add should not embed code from other packages

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

Bug#206684: debian-policy: Proposal for going ahead with mandatory debconf use for prompting

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Last I knew, policy said packages *were* allowed to depend on the > availability of /dev/tty during configuration, even if they're not > supposed to be doing direct prompting by way of it. This seems to have > been changed, but isn't mentioned in the p

Bug#206684: debian-policy: Proposal for going ahead with mandatory debconf use for prompting

On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 08:27:40PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 08/03/07 at 08:02 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On 07/03/07 at 23:07 +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: > > > > I would really like to see that happening at the beginning of the lenny > > > > release cycle. Packages that prompt wi

Bug#241333: Proposed release goal: UTF-8 for changelog and control

In looking at some long-standing Policy bugs, I see that Policy currently doesn't specify a character set for debian/control and only recommends UTF-8 for debian/changelog in an appendix. I think that it's time to simply require UTF-8 for changelog and control files, and I think the interoperabili

Bug#206684: debian-policy: Proposal for going ahead with mandatory debconf use for prompting

Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 08/03/07 at 08:02 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >> Well, that's really the worst case scenario. I would have to run >> piuparts again to get better numbers, since: >> >> - I'm running piuparts on etch, not sid, and packages >> in-sid-but-not-in-etc

Bug#206684: debian-policy: Proposal for going ahead with mandatory debconf use for prompting

On 08/03/07 at 08:02 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 07/03/07 at 23:07 +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: > > > I would really like to see that happening at the beginning of the lenny > > > release cycle. Packages that prompt without using debconf make it > > > unnecessary difficult to test them usi

Bug#430649: Please clarify splitting/syntax of DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS

Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > My preferred policy change would be to state that DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS > must be a space-separated list of keywords and parameters with > parameters taking the form "name=value". The allowed chars for name > and values would be limited to a-z, A-Z, 1-9,

Bug#241333: policy mentions that changelogs should be utf-8; this is a bug

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007, Russ Allbery wrote: > Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Pretty much all of the tools that read debian/control assume that it is > > in UTF-8, including the BTS, so even though it isn't a mandate of > > policy, it's effectively mandated by the tools that actually use

Bug#241333: policy mentions that changelogs should be utf-8; this is a bug

Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 04 Jul 2007, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Comments? > Pretty much all of the tools that read debian/control assume that it is > in UTF-8, including the BTS, so even though it isn't a mandate of > policy, it's effectively mandated by the tools that act

Bug#241333: policy mentions that changelogs should be utf-8; this is a bug

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007, Russ Allbery wrote: > Comments? Pretty much all of the tools that read debian/control assume that it is in UTF-8, including the BTS, so even though it isn't a mandate of policy, it's effectively mandated by the tools that actually use these files. > Also, while we're looking

Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Actually there are two minor typos in my patch: > Saving > > Tools for blanking the screen. Entries of screen hacks and >configuration GUIs should go to other appropriate sections. >

Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 12:02:02AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Here it is. Please check it matches the proposed new menu structure. > > It looks correct to me. I've applied this patch to my arch repository. > Thank you! Actually there are two mi

Bug#428213: closed by Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Re: Bug#428213: policy 4.9: minor (non-normative) patch for 'debian/rules build' explanation)

Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Oh, I think I got the point of the section, I just don't agree. > The problem with invoking build stuff from the binary target is that > the binary target is run as root, whereas the build target is not. > Ordinarily, you don't need to be root to buil

Bug#209008: parallel building: DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS or DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS_PARALLEL

On Wed, Jul 04, 2007, Peter Samuelson wrote: > $(filter) filters on whitespace, so this still will not work for > "x=1,parallel=2". My code, posted earlier, handles the (perhaps > common) case of comma-separated DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS. (It is because $(filter ) filters on whitespace that I fixed usag

Bug#99324: Pics

I am out of the office until Monday July 9th, with very limited email access. If your matter is urgent please call our office at 1-800-704-8777. Thank you. Wally Vogel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#428213: closed by Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Re: Bug#428213: policy 4.9: minor (non-normative) patch for 'debian/rules build' explanation)

[Debian Bug Tracking System] > You missed the point of this section, which is about cases where > there is no single build of the package. Instead, the package is > built twice (or more) with, for example, different configure options. Oh, I think I got the point of the section, I just don't agre

Bug#209008: parallel building: DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS or DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS_PARALLEL

[Russ Allbery] > @@ -6466,6 +6466,20 @@ > not be stripped from the binary during installation, > so that debugging information may be included in the package. > > + parallel=n > + > + This string means that the package should be b

Bug#209008: parallel building: DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS or DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS_PARALLEL

[Loïc Minier] > On Wed, Jul 04, 2007, Russ Allbery wrote: > > +ifneq (,$(findstring parallel=,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS))) > > +NUMJOBS = $(patsubst parallel=%,%,$(filter > > parallel=%,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS))) > > +MAKEFLAGS += -j$(NUMJOBS) > > +endif > > Since this fails for DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="x=1,pa

Bug#420701: GFDL is now in common-licenses

Russ Allbery wrote: Here is a proposed wording patch. Unless there are any objections, I'll commit this to my repository. --- orig/policy.sgml +++ mod/policy.sgml @@ -8653,8 +8653,8 @@ Packages distributed under the UCB BSD license, the Artistic - license, the GNU GPL, a

Bug#392362: [PROPOSAL] Add should not embed code from other packages

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

Bug#209008: parallel building: DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS or DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS_PARALLEL

On Wed, Jul 04, 2007, Russ Allbery wrote: > +ifneq (,$(findstring parallel=,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS))) > +NUMJOBS = $(patsubst parallel=%,%,$(filter parallel=%,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS))) > +MAKEFLAGS += -j$(NUMJOBS) > +endif Since this fails for DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="x=1,parallel=2", please change the ifne

Processed: tagging 418444

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.4 > tags 418444 pending Bug#418444: debian-policy: recommend binary:Version substvar instead Tags were: patch Tags added: pending > End of message, stopping processing here. Please cont

Bug#392362: [PROPOSAL] Add should not embed code from other packages

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

Bug#420701: GFDL is now in common-licenses

Here is a proposed wording patch. Unless there are any objections, I'll commit this to my repository. --- orig/policy.sgml +++ mod/policy.sgml @@ -8653,8 +8653,8 @@ Packages distributed under the UCB BSD license, the Artistic - license, the GNU GPL, and the GNU LGPL,

Bug#428213: marked as done (policy 4.9: minor (non-normative) patch for 'debian/rules build' explanation)

Your message dated Wed, 04 Jul 2007 01:35:05 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#428213: policy 4.9: minor (non-normative) patch for 'debian/rules build' explanation has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has

Bug#207132: marked as done (debian-policy is missing gcc transition plans)

Your message dated Wed, 04 Jul 2007 01:26:32 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#207132: debian-policy is missing gcc transition plans 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

Bug#209008: parallel building: DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS or DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS_PARALLEL

Okay, I think we have a consensus at this point that this is the right thing to do and that adding another flag to DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS is the best way of implementing it. For the time being, I'd like to keep discussion of the flag to use separate from the general discussion of how the tags should be

Processed: tagging 392594, tagging 361418, tagging 294962, tagging 382612

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.4 > tags 392594 pending Bug#392594: typo: "must not be not world-writable" There were no tags set. Tags added: pending > tags 361418 pending Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu struct

Bug#424212: Possible patch

Gerard "Lledó\" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The problem is that debian/rules is overwriting the main Makefile in the > first build with the Makefile that is contained in > fhs-2.3-source.tar.gz. Probably, this file was supossed to uncompress in > a directory, but it's not doing that. Of course,

Re: Source version in .changes

Magnus Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Section 5.6.1 of the DPM states: > "In a main source control information, a .changes or a .dsc file this may > contain only the name of the source package. This grammar correct not entirely. > In the control file of a binary package it may be

Processed: Re: Bug#241333: policy mentions that changelogs should be utf-8; this is a bug

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > retitle 241333 require UTF-8 encoding in changelogs and control files Bug#241333: policy mentions that changelogs should be utf-8; this is a bug Changed Bug title to `require UTF-8 encoding in changelogs and control files' from `policy mentions that ch

Bug#241333: policy mentions that changelogs should be utf-8; this is a bug

retitle 241333 require UTF-8 encoding in changelogs and control files thanks Guillem Jover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 04:09:51 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:02:52 -0600 (CST), Adam Heath said: >> > This is not supported by any tool in debian. >>

Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Here it is. Please check it matches the proposed new menu structure. It looks correct to me. I've applied this patch to my arch repository. Thank you! -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- To UNSUBSCR