Bug#759491: Defining pseudo-essential

Guillem Jover writes: > On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 09:22:42 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> @@ -1321,6 +1323,76 @@ zope. >> mailing list and a consensus about doing that has been >> reached. >> >> + >> + >> + Pseudo-essential packages >> + >> + >> +

Bug#759491: Defining pseudo-essential

Hi! On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 09:22:42 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Ansgar Burchardt writes: > > That's related to being (pseudo-)essential and not to priority. Package > > of Priority: required do not have to be pseudo-essential, but packages > > of lower priority can be pseudo-essential: > @@ -132

Bug#759186: debian-policy: please consider adding "nodoc" as a possible value for DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS to policy

Le Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 08:21:05AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : > > How about: > > This tag says to skip any build steps that only generate package > documentation. Required files such as copyright and changelog files > must still be generated and put in the package, but other gener

Bug#759491: Bug#758234: Defining pseudo-essential

Charles Plessy writes: > Thanks Russ, I think that this new paragraph is very useful. > If need is I second its addition. Yes, I'm looking for seconds for this. Thank you! > This addition will cause the current section 3.9 (Maintainer Scripts) to > be renumbered 3.10, but I do not expect this

Bug#759491: Bug#758234: Defining pseudo-essential

Le Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 03:15:28PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : > Jakub Wilk writes: > > * Russ Allbery , 2014-08-27, 09:22: > > >>+ often tricky and inobvious. > > > Is it "inobvious", "unobvious", or "non(-)obvious"? > > Maybe just say "not obvious". > > Yes, that's better. Thanks

Bug#759491: Bug#758234: Defining pseudo-essential

Jakub Wilk writes: > * Russ Allbery , 2014-08-27, 09:22: >>+ often tricky and inobvious. > Is it "inobvious", "unobvious", or "non(-)obvious"? > Maybe just say "not obvious". Yes, that's better. Thanks. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)

Re: Bug#759492: File conflicts between /bin and /usr/bin

On 27/08/14 17:59, Russ Allbery wrote: > Some other distributions have merged /bin, /sbin, and /lib into /usr > via the symlinks: > > /bin -> /usr/bin > /sbin -> /usr/sbin > /lib -> /usr/lib > /lib64 -> /usr/lib64 Other merges worth considering if you're in a "kill all the directo

Bug#759492: File conflicts between /bin and /usr/bin

Hi! On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 09:59:10 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: wishlist > > I could have sworn we already had a bug open about this, but I couldn't > find it. If someone else does find it, please merge. I'm not sure if you were thinking about #562863? Althoug

Bug#759491: Bug#758234: Defining pseudo-essential

* Russ Allbery , 2014-08-27, 09:22: + often tricky and inobvious. Is it "inobvious", "unobvious", or "non(-)obvious"? Maybe just say "not obvious". -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact lis

Bug#759492: File conflicts between /bin and /usr/bin

Package: debian-policy Severity: wishlist I could have sworn we already had a bug open about this, but I couldn't find it. If someone else does find it, please merge. Some other distributions have merged /bin, /sbin, and /lib into /usr via the symlinks: /bin -> /usr/bin /sbin -> /usr/sb

Processed: Re: Bug#758234: Defining pseudo-essential

Processing control commands: > clone 758234 -1 Bug #758234 [debian-policy] debian-policy: allow packages to depend on packages of lower priority Bug 758234 cloned as bug 759491 > retitle -1 Define pseudo-essential Bug #759491 [debian-policy] debian-policy: allow packages to depend on packages of

Bug#759186: debian-policy: please consider adding "nodoc" as a possible value for DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS to policy

Hi, Quoting Russ Allbery (2014-08-27 17:21:05) > This is back to the problem of ambiguity with changelog, copyright, etc. Hm. > How about: > > This tag says to skip any build steps that only generate package > documentation. Required files such as copyright and changelog files must >

Bug#758234: Defining pseudo-essential

Control: clone 758234 -1 Control: retitle -1 Define pseudo-essential Ansgar Burchardt writes: > That's related to being (pseudo-)essential and not to priority. Package > of Priority: required do not have to be pseudo-essential, but packages > of lower priority can be pseudo-essential: I hate to

Bug#759186: debian-policy: please consider adding "nodoc" as a possible value for DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS to policy

Johannes Schauer writes: > Quoting Russ Allbery (2014-08-26 23:51:08) >> This tag says not to build any separate binary packages that >> contain only documentation, and ideally to skip any time- or >> resource-consuming build steps that only generate documentation. >> Examples inc

Bug#759186: debian-policy: please consider adding "nodoc" as a possible value for DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS to policy

Hi, Quoting Russ Allbery (2014-08-26 23:51:08) > > I think that it is a good idea. Here is a draft patch. > > > When writing this patch, I became unsure if “*-doc” packages are the best > > description for the binary packages that will not be built. probably in many cases but while it would not

Bug#758234: [PATCH] Remove priority "extra", make all corresponding packages priority "optional"

Jonathan Nieder writes: > Ansgar Burchardt wrote: >> Russ Allbery writes: >>> In some cases, it can change maintenance decisions. >> >> Does this differ much from packages being picked up by other commonly >> installed software? Say GNOME starting to depend on my small library >> which suddenly r

Bug#759316: Document the use of /etc/default for cron jobs

Charles Plessy, 2014-08-27 06:56+0900: I am unsure what the standard practice is in this situation. Can you and others comment on the existence or not of alternatives, in Debian and elsewhere ? The only alternatives I know of are: 1. to put all the configuration in the cron job script itself;