Bug#591791: [PATCH] Document generic and upstart-specific init-system requirements

Jonathan Nieder writes: > Thanks! Here's a copy for reference. I take it from the rest of your > reply that you still second it. > (I haven't carefully reviewed the patch or later discussion yet myself.) I also still second it; I think it's time to get this into Policy, and we can deal with a

Bug#591791: [PATCH] Document generic and upstart-specific init-system requirements

Steve Langasek wrote: > The current patch is the one at > . Thanks! Here's a copy for reference. I take it from the rest of your reply that you still second it. (I haven't carefully reviewed the patch or later discussion yet myself.)

Bug#591791: [PATCH] Document generic and upstart-specific init-system requirements

On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 11:10:53AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > If I understand the policy process correctly, the N=3 requirement for > > patches includes the submitter; so with two other seconds, I think this is > > ready to go. > There was an objection from Michael Biebl True. But when p

Bug#591791: [PATCH] Document generic and upstart-specific init-system requirements

Steve Langasek wrote: > If I understand the policy process correctly, the N=3 requirement for > patches includes the submitter; so with two other seconds, I think this is > ready to go. There was an objection from Michael Biebl and quite a bit of discussion after those seconds which touched on im

Re: Debian Policy 3.9.4.0 planned for 2012-09-04

Steve Langasek writes: > I would like to suggest #591791 be added to this list. This is already > implemented in the archive in startpar/sysvinit/debhelper, so this is > now a matter of documenting existing practice and documenting the > correct constraints on the use of upstart jobs in packages

Bug#671355: debian-policy: [debconf_spec] Document escape capability.

Le 27/08/2012 11:24, Russ Allbery a écrit : > Charles Plessy writes: > >> I just figured out that Defconf's escape capability is not mentionned in >> the spec. Here is a small patch to correct this. > > Seconded. > >> From: Charles Plessy >> Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 22:19:30 +0900 >> Subject: [P

Re: Debian Policy 3.9.4.0 planned for 2012-09-04

Hi Russ, On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 08:47:39AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > I plan on uploading version 3.9.4.0 of the debian-policy package on > 2012-09-04. The target for this release is to incorporate accumulated > fixes that catch Policy up to current behavior and current practices. > Since we'r

Bug#591791: [PATCH] Document generic and upstart-specific init-system requirements

user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org usertag 591791 seconded thanks If I understand the policy process correctly, the N=3 requirement for patches includes the submitter; so with two other seconds, I think this is ready to go. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy ...

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). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Debian Policy 3.9.4.0 planned for 2012-09-04

I plan on uploading version 3.9.4.0 of the debian-policy package on 2012-09-04. The target for this release is to incorporate accumulated fixes that catch Policy up to current behavior and current practices. Since we're in release freeze at the moment, I don't intend to pursue, for this release, c

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, tagging 345619

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). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#374029: Build-Depends{,-Indep} as defined is not useful and not followed

Russ Allbery writes: > The following patch implements the decision of the Debian Technical > Committee in #629385 to make build-arch and build-indep mandatory. > Please review. Note that I'm not looking for conventional seconds since > the Technical Committee has already made a judgement; rather

Bug#671355: debian-policy: [debconf_spec] Document escape capability.

Charles Plessy writes: > I just figured out that Defconf's escape capability is not mentionned in > the spec. Here is a small patch to correct this. Seconded. > From: Charles Plessy > Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 22:19:30 +0900 > Subject: [PATCH] Document Debconf's escape capability. > --- > debco

Bug#685992: debian-policy: Document in the policy the way to properly set selinux labels on files and directories

Laurent Bigonville writes: > On selinux enabled machine, when an initscript is creating a directory > or a file it might end up not having the correct selinux label on disk. > If the service is protected by selinux this will result in the service > not working at all or having some weird behaviou

Processed: block 678719 with 685992

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > block 678719 with 685992 Bug #678719 {Done: Bastian Blank } [xen-utils-common] xen-utils-common: please label all created directories for SE Linux 678719 was not blocked by any bugs. 678719 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 6787

Bug#685992: debian-policy: Document in the policy the way to properly set selinux labels on files and directories

Package: debian-policy Severity: wishlist Hi, On selinux enabled machine, when an initscript is creating a directory or a file it might end up not having the correct selinux label on disk. If the service is protected by selinux this will result in the service not working at all or having some wei