Russ Allbery writes:
> Ben Finney writes:
>
> > The proximal motivation for this is the Lintian check that results
> > in the ‘debian-control-has-unusual-field-spacing’ tag.
>
> Are you perhaps using a version of Lintian prior to 2.2.12 and
> therefore running into Bug#528377?
Yes :-) I was r
Ben Finney writes:
> Right, but in my view it's one of exactly two “correct” forms for such a
> field:
>
> Foo-Field: spam, eggs, beans
>
> Foo-Field:
> spam,
> eggs,
> beans
> I would like the latter form recorded in policy as good form for
> multi-line fields.
Russ Allbery writes:
> Ben Finney writes:
> > Is this a more general pattern that could be described in one place,
> > and referenced from multiple parts of the policy? I would like to
> > see some of the ‘debian/control’ fields, such as the dependency
> > fields, permitted (though not required)
Ben Finney writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> +
>> +In all cases, Files is a multiline field. The first line of
>> +the field value (the part on the same line as Files:)
>> +is always empty. The content of the field is expressed as
>> +continuation lines, o
Russ Allbery writes:
> +
> + In all cases, Files is a multiline field. The first line of
> + the field value (the part on the same line as Files:)
> + is always empty. The content of the field is expressed as
> + continuation lines, one line per file. Eac
Russ Allbery writes:
> How about:
> In all cases, Files is a multiline field. The first line of the
> field value (the part on the same line as Files:) is always
> empty. The content of the field is expressed as continuation lines,
> one line per file. Each line must be indent
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> package debian-policy
Ignoring bugs not assigned to: debian-policy
> tags 224509 patch
Bug #224509 [debian-policy] Don't require a T
I think at this point, now that debconf is mandatory for all but essential
packages, removing the guarantee of a controlling terminal is
uncontroversial. This bug has been open for a while and I'd like to put
it to bed. Here's proposed wording. I'm looking for feedback or seconds.
diff --git a/
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> package debian-policy
Ignoring bugs not assigned to: debian-policy
> tags 299007 - wontfix
Bug #299007 [debian-policy] base-files: I
Guillem Jover writes:
> On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 13:33:57 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Raphaël Hertzog writes:
>>> In response to http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=494714 I
>>> would like that the policy be updated to allow the Binary field in .dsc
>>> and .changes to span over mult
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 13:33:57 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Raphaël Hertzog writes:
>
> > In response to http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=494714 I
> > would like that the policy be updated to allow the Binary field in .dsc
> > and .changes to span over multiple lines.
>
> Sorry a
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> package debian-policy
Ignoring bugs not assigned to: debian-policy
> severity 429671 wishlist
Bug #429671 [debian-policy] exim4 user
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> package debian-policy
Ignoring bugs not assigned to: debian-policy
> usertags 537707 - proposal
Bug#537707: groff limitations on man
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> package debian-policy
Ignoring bugs not assigned to: debian-policy
> usertags 538392 normative discussion
Bug#538392: Should /usr/lo
Julien Cristau writes:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 16:02:50 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Oh, thanks. Fixed. Both are technically correct, but estimate is the
>> word normally used in that context.
> still missing "of" though between "estimate" and "the"?
Indeed. Also fixed.
--
Russ Allbery
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> package debian-policy
Ignoring bugs not assigned to: debian-policy
> tags 493007 l10n
Bug #493007 [debian-policy] Require localized
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 16:02:50 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes:
> > Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> Sorry about the delay in dealing with this. I've now committed:
> >>
> >>
> >> Installed-Size
> >>
> >>
> >>This field appears in the control file
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> package debian-policy
Ignoring bugs not assigned to: debian-policy
> usertags 533852 - discussion
Bug#533852: debian-policy: Allow B
Patrick Schoenfeld writes:
> 10.9.1 The use of dpkg-statoverride states:
>
> "The corresponding dpkg-statoverride --remove calls can then be made
> unconditionally when the package is purged."
>
> This is not true, because dpkg-statoverride fails, if no override
> exists, causing the purge to fai
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> package debian-policy
Ignoring bugs not assigned to: debian-policy
> usertags 538665 normative
Bug#538665: debian-policy: "Info docu
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Sorry about the delay in dealing with this. I've now committed:
>>
>>
>>Installed-Size
>>
>>
>> This field appears in the control files of binary packages,
>> and in the Packages files. It gives an
Hi,
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Sorry about the delay in dealing with this. I've now committed:
>
>
> Installed-Size
>
>
> This field appears in the control files of binary packages,
> and in the Packages files. It gives an
> estimation the total
Sven Joachim writes:
> Section 12.2, "Info documents", contains outdated information. Nowadays
> info files are installed via a dpkg trigger provided by the install-info
> package, and maintainer scripts should not invoke install-info at all.
> Actually, packages using dh_installinfo will not ca
Jonathan Yu writes:
> So this means they would be a good candidate to merge together, or for
> one to reference the other. For example if Section 5.6.7 would say:
> "Please see Section 5.6.1 for the naming conventions, binary package
> names follow the same restrictions as their source counterpar
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> forcemerge 519941 411510
Bug#519941: 10.2 Libraries recommends use of /etc/ld.so.conf instead of
/etc/ld.so.conf.d
Bug#411510: Use /etc/ld.so.conf.d instead of /etc/ld.so.conf
Forcibly Merged 411510 519941.
>
End of message, stopping processing
Julien Cristau writes:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 13:37:39 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The following wording has received one second and needs an additional
>> second to be committed to the next revision of Policy. Is everyone happy
>> with it?
> Seconded.
Thanks, committed for the next relea
Russ Allbery writes:
> If we were starting from scratch, I agree, but I'm not sure how to
> phrase that.
>
> Here's what I currently have, which has one second from Julien and
> previous seconds from Manoj and Raphaël for previous versions of the
> wording. I'd welcome any additional proposals f
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 13:37:39 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The following wording has received one second and needs an additional
> second to be committed to the next revision of Policy. Is everyone happy
> with it?
>
> > --- a/policy.sgml
> > +++ b/policy.sgml
> > @@ -8885,6 +8885,15 @@ name
Steve Langasek writes:
> This recommendation needs to be elminated entirely. It is *not* ok for
> packages that provide libraries to stick extra linker paths in the
> global configuration, whether by modifying ld.so.conf or by adding to
> /etc/ld.so.conf.d. Either the libraries provided by the
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 13:33:57 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Raphaël Hertzog writes:
>
> > In response to http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=494714 I
> > would like that the policy be updated to allow the Binary field in .dsc
> > and .changes to span over multiple lines.
>
> Sorr
Russ Allbery writes:
> After reading the thread, I propose the following reduced version of
> this patch. It omits some of the more specific instructions (as
> discussed), which can be covered in the devref, and it also avoids the
> assumption that the original man page is in English. By and la
Raphaël Hertzog writes:
> In response to http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=494714 I
> would like that the policy be updated to allow the Binary field in .dsc
> and .changes to span over multiple lines.
Sorry about the delay in getting to this. Here is somewhat different
proposed
Sorry about the delay in dealing with this. I've now committed:
Installed-Size
This field appears in the control files of binary packages,
and in the Packages files. It gives an
estimation the total amount of disk space required
33 matches
Mail list logo
