Bug#587991: perl-policy: /etc/perl missing from Module Path

On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 08:15:28PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Ansgar Burchardt noticed: > > perl/5.8.0-7 added /etc/perl to @INC: > > * Prepend /etc/perl to @INC to provide a standard location for > > configuration modules: > > But this addition has never been documented in the Debia

Bug#556015: Clarify requirements for copyright file

Hi Russ, Russ Allbery wrote: > Right, this was the reason why I hadn't committed anything yet. We have > to decide whether we're going to prohibit arch:any -> arch:all links > completely to ensure that the binNMU changelog entries are visible. My > inclination is to do so, and hence drop this w

Bug#556015: Clarify requirements for copyright file

Jonathan Nieder writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> +++ b/policy.sgml >> @@ -573,10 +573,15 @@ >> Copyright considerations >> >> >> - Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its >> + Every binary package must include a verbatim copy of its >>copyright i

Bug#203098: marked as done (Use in generated HTML)

Your message dated Sat, 5 Mar 2011 00:02:07 -0600 with message-id <20110305060207.GA23480@elie> and subject line Re: using has caused the Debian Bug report #203098, regarding Use in generated HTML to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is no

Processed: Re: Clarify requirements for copyright file

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tags 556015 - patch Bug #556015 [debian-policy] Clarify requirements for linked doc directories Bug #476810 [debian-policy] Please clarify 12.5, "Copyright information" Removed tag(s) patch. Removed tag(s) patch. > quit Stopping processing here.

Bug#556015: Clarify requirements for copyright file

tags 556015 - patch quit Hi, Russ Allbery wrote: > Here's a patch that is explicit about the required dependencies and > discourages the last case. Does this look good to everyone? I'm missing some background but hopefully that's all right. Quick comments. > +++ b/policy.sgml > @@ -573,10 +5

Processed: Re: debian-policy: Should clarify package availability in "postrm remove"

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > forcemerge 504880 403649 Bug#504880: Disambiguate "installed" for packages Bug#403649: Clarify Depends reliability during postrm remove Forcibly Merged 403649 504880. > quit Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. --

Bug#403649: debian-policy: Should clarify package availability in "postrm remove"

forcemerge 504880 403649 quit Hi Frank, Frank Küster wrote: > Current Policy says: > > , 7.2 Binary Dependencies > | The Depends field should also be used if the postinst, prerm or > | postrm scripts require the package to be present in order to > | run. Note, however, that the postrm cannot

Bug#23712: conflicting packages with the same conffile

Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Sat, 21 Aug 2010, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Hm. All the words that I had intended to be there are there. I clearly >> need to rephrase it somehow, though, if it's not clear. How about: >> >> When two packages both declare the same conffile, they may >> see left-

Bug#587991: perl-policy: /etc/perl missing from Module Path

Hi, Ansgar Burchardt noticed: > perl/5.8.0-7 added /etc/perl to @INC: > > * Prepend /etc/perl to @INC to provide a standard location for > configuration modules: > > But this addition has never been documented in the Debian Perl Policy. Russ Allbery wrote: > Good point. Here's updated pr

Bug#587279: debian-policy: clarify wording of parenthetical in section 2.2.1

* Jonathan Nieder [110304 18:22]: > forcemerge 587279 616462 > quit > > Hi Marvin, > > See for much edifying discussion. > > It includes[1] a wording I like, for what it's worth. Sadly, the > previous conversation seemed to be at an impasse. Perhaps the > follo

Processed: Re: debian-policy: clarify wording of parenthetical in section 2.2.1

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > forcemerge 587279 616462 Bug#587279: Clarify restrictions on main to non-free dependencies Bug#616462: debian-policy: clarify wording of parenthetical in section 2.2.1 Forcibly Merged 587279 616462. > quit Stopping processing here. Please contac

Bug#587279: debian-policy: clarify wording of parenthetical in section 2.2.1

forcemerge 587279 616462 quit Hi Marvin, Marvin Renich wrote: > to > > ...the packages in main > >• must not require a package outside of main for compilation or > execution (thus, all declared "Depends", "Recommends", and > "Build-Depends" relationships must be satisfiable with on

Bug#504880: Disambiguate "installed" for packages

Russ Allbery wrote: > Does that look okay? Yes, the version in branch 504880-rra looks good to me (with one tweak: --- a/policy.sgml +++ b/policy.sgml @@ -4027,5 +4027,5 @@ fi in postrm purges the debconf configuration for the package if debconf

Processed: Re: debian-policy: anchor issues in HTML version

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > reopen 616042 Bug #616042 {Done: Osamu Aoki } [debiandoc-sgml] debiandoc2html: titles should not have embedded tags > retitle 616042 debiandoc2html: title attribute of tags must be plain > text Bug #616042 [debiandoc-sgml] debiandoc2html: tit

Bug#613946: debian-policy: anchor issues in HTML version

reopen 616042 retitle 616042 debiandoc2html: title attribute of tags must be plain text severity 616042 wishlist tags 616042 + wontfix retitle 613946 Debian policy should use DocBook XML for source quit Hi Osamu, Osamu Aoki wrote: > http://wiki.debian.org/DocbookXmlTransition Thanks, I didn't

Bug#616457: debian-policy: always write version of Debian in documentation at the beginning

Hi again, sergey wrote: > It is like bad tradition now: many documentation do not contain information > about > Debian version. It is very strange for me. How can be authors 100% sure > that their documentation is absolutely correct for all Debian versions, > from 1.1 or older to the current?

Processed: Re: debian-policy: Decide on arbitrary file/path names limit

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > # looks like I jumped the gun in rejecting this. > # A detailed proposal (i.e., where to add words and what > # words to add) might be a good way forward. > tags 587377 - wontfix Bug #587377 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Decide on arbitrary file/

Bug#616465: debian-policy: description file in each system directory

Hi Sergey! sergey wrote: > What do you think about placing README in each system directory? I think the idea is interesting but agree with Steve that policy is not the best way to move it forward. Packages already can put README files in particularly mysterious directories, and I don't see a co

Processed (with 1 errors): Re: Bug#587377: debian-policy: Decide on arbitrary file/path names limit

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > # looks like I jumped the gun in rejecting this. > tags 587377 - wishlist Unknown tag/s: wishlist. Recognized are: patch wontfix moreinfo unreproducible fixed potato woody sid help security upstream pending sarge sarge-ignore experimental d-i con

Bug#587377: debian-policy: Decide on arbitrary file/path names limit

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011, Sean Finney wrote: > Having a warning in lintian for arbitrarily long (perhaps >= 256) > filenames is totally reasonable i'd say, but there's no reason to Most (all?) filesystems commonly used in Debian systems will limit you to somewhere close to 254 characters per filename (

Bug#616465: debian-policy: description file in each system directory

On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 08:37:45PM +0300, sergey wrote: > What do you think about placing README in each system directory? I think it's fine if maintainers of relevant packages want to do this, but it's not anything that Policy should be enforcing. > /etc/init.d/README, I think I was running Deb

Bug#616462: debian-policy: clarify wording of parenthetical in section 2.2.1

On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 12:57:53PM -0500, Marvin Renich wrote: > * Steve Langasek [110304 11:36]: > > Although I agree with you that this parenthetical has been mistaken for > > normative language and it should be clarified with regards to intent, the > > clarification you've suggested is OTOH wea

Bug#616462: debian-policy: clarify wording of parenthetical in section 2.2.1

* Steve Langasek [110304 11:36]: > Although I agree with you that this parenthetical has been mistaken for > normative language and it should be clarified with regards to intent, the > clarification you've suggested is OTOH weaker than what I understand the > common rule to be. If the goal is to

Bug#616462: debian-policy: clarify wording of parenthetical in section 2.2.1

On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 11:35:43AM -0500, Marvin Renich wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Version: 3.9.1.0 > Severity: wishlist > As suggested in thread on debian-devel (starting at > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/03/msg00202.html), change the > wording of the parenthetical in the firs

Bug#616465: debian-policy: description file in each system directory

Package: debian-policy Severity: wishlist Excuse me for my bad English :-) What do you think about placing README in each system directory? IMHO it make system exploration more interesting for new users and can be helpful for expirienced users too. Now Debian 6 already contain READMEs in som

Bug#616462: debian-policy: clarify wording of parenthetical in section 2.2.1

Package: debian-policy Version: 3.9.1.0 Severity: wishlist As suggested in thread on debian-devel (starting at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/03/msg00202.html), change the wording of the parenthetical in the first bullet of section 2.2.1 from ...the packages in main • must not requ

Bug#616457: debian-policy: always write version of Debian in documentation at the beginning

Package: debian-policy Severity: normal Excuse me for my bad English :-) It is like bad tradition now: many documentation do not contain information about Debian version. It is very strange for me. How can be authors 100% sure that their documentation is absolutely correct for all Debian versi

Processed: Re: debian-policy: anchor issues in HTML version

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > severity 616043 wishlist Bug #616043 [debiandoc-sgml] debiandoc2html: anchors should enclose heading text Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'minor' > tags 616043 wontfix Bug #616043 [debiandoc-sgml] debiandoc2html: anchors should enclose headin

Bug#613946: debian-policy: anchor issues in HTML version

severity 616043 wishlist tags 616043 wontfix severity 613946 wishlist thanks Hi, Before I start, let me remind people that it is more important to convert all these SGML documents to DocBook XML. So far, I am having good success for maint-guide. I will work on this document once I get comfortab