Le Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 09:50:38PM +0200, Paul Gevers a écrit :
>
> As I understand "age-days" indicates that a particular version of a
> package should default to needing days instead of whatever the
> upload urgency might imply.' means exactly that the urgency for
> migration to testing is repl
>> +transitions may be switched off altogether. The Debian Release
>> team can override +the urgency;
> I am not sure what is meant by "overriding the urgency". The Release
> team can directly control the migration time for a package, but this
> is not exactly done by replacing the urgency by ano
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 12:01:30PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:00:14AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Would "lockuser" need to be in the adduser package? Given that
> > adduser is only priority:important, it's not guaranteed to be present
> > when postrm is run, so the ope
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 12:00:25PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:12:20AM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > * When the package is removed, the user should be locked:
> > "lockuser foo".
> > * lockuser is a still-hypothetical tool, which needs to be added
> > to the adduser
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 11:55:39AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> > It would also alter the existing behaviour of adduser, which is to
> > return nonzero if the user already exists, which could cause
> > breakage.
> NACK, adduser --system does return zero if the user already exists and
> its par
Marc Haber writes:
> Unfortunately, Policy is not clear on where a system accounts' "home
> directory" is to be placed. Thus, a maintainer trying to fix the "bug"
> that a home directory was placed *gasp* in /home is risking to do it
> wrong again when choosing between /etc/package(/home) and
> /
On 01/07/12 11:25, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 11:15:18AM +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
>> I had the feeling things were going to be clarified so
>> I was waiting on that clarification.
>
> That is of course acceptable. Don't break things until Policy forces
> you to do so ,-)
>
>
On 01/07/12 11:25, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 11:15:18AM +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
>> I had the feeling things were going to be clarified so
>> I was waiting on that clarification.
>
> That is of course acceptable. Don't break things until Policy forces
> you to do so ,-)
>
>
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 11:15:18AM +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> I had the feeling things were going to be clarified so
> I was waiting on that clarification.
That is of course acceptable. Don't break things until Policy forces
you to do so ,-)
Greetings
Marc
--
--
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal
Hi,
many packages have to create system accounts on installation.
Unfortunately, Debian policy is not quite clear on how to handle
these. On the other hand, Debian QA is keen on addressing issues in
account handling, which frequently leads to discussions ab
Marc,
I inherited it. I had the feeling things were going to be clarified so
I was waiting on that clarification. Also if I recall I was trying to
raise the issue that half the issue was missed.
On 01/07/12 10:56, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 11:52:40AM +0100, Nicholas Bamb
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:00:14AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Would "lockuser" need to be in the adduser package? Given that
> adduser is only priority:important, it's not guaranteed to be present
> when postrm is run, so the operation could fail. Maybe passwd is a
> better place for it, given t
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:12:20AM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> * To create an user, a maintainer script should call
> "adduser --system foo". It is not necessary to wrap this in
> a check for whether the user exists.
It would be a bug to do so. Add --quiet to the adduser call if you
don't w
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 11:52:40AM +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> I am managing a package that does 'userdel' in a purge.
Don't do that, use deluser, if you insist. And even that is dangerous.
Greetings
Marc
--
-
Marc
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 08:32:21PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> We could add special behaviour to adduser to unlock the account
> if it already exists when run in the postinst.
Yes, that would be the way to go for adduser --system
> However, most postinsts wrap the call to adduser with a check f
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 12:04:35PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>I'm currently using this logic (in postinst)
>
> # Create dedicated sbuild user
> if ! getent passwd sbuild > /dev/null; then
> adduser --system --quiet --home /var/lib/sbuild --no-create-home \
> --shell
Le Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 09:33:18AM +0200, Paul Gevers a écrit :
> Index: pkgs.dbk
> ===
> --- pkgs.dbk (revision 9236)
> +++ pkgs.dbk (working copy)
> @@ -2388,7 +2388,8 @@
> the urgency is sticky, meaning that the highest urgency
Package: developers-reference
Version: 3.4.8
Severity: minor
$ zcat developers-reference.txt.gz | grep Freenode
key in the Debian keyring. Please see Freenodes documentation for
It should be s/Freenodes/Freenode/.
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debi
On 29-06-12 23:14, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:> Hi,
> you either want to install aspell, or you might want to contact
> debian-l10-english for a review of your patch.
I am sorry for this stupid mistake.
Please find a new patch attached.
Paul
Index: pkgs.dbk
19 matches
Mail list logo
