Andreas Henriksson writes:
> I don't think it's policys place to describe the actual implementation
> details (which might change and we really don't care that much).
> Instead only focus on if package maintainers needs to take special care
> (like currently described in policy) or not (which is
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 '
Control: tags 852314 pending
Marc Haber writes:
> policy 9.1.1 nr 8 and the upgrading checklist still mention that
> Packages must not assume that /run exists without a versioned
> dependency on initscript "until the stable release of Debian supports
> /run".
> This language will lure the unobs
Processing control commands:
> tags 852314 pending
Bug #852314 [debian-policy] stable release of debian now supports /run
Added tag(s) pending.
--
852314: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=852314
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Control: tag 181123 pending
Andreas Henriksson writes:
> These patches is an attempt to finally put #181123 to rest.
> It tries to strike a well balanced middle ground between existing
> debian state of the archive and the LSB. The main focus has been
> to atleast mention the actions where prev
Processing control commands:
> tag 181123 pending
Bug #181123 [debian-policy] Regulate init script behavior in unusual cases
Bug #208010 [debian-policy] Require init.d scripts comply with LSB
Bug #851708 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Add try-restart action for init
script
Added tag(s) pending.
A
Guillem Jover writes:
> I've found the problem with the wrong spacing, which was due to tidy(1),
> I've played now with xmllint(1) and pandoc(1), but disabled the initial
> cleanup for now (branch updated). So the converted XML is not indented,
> but I'm not sure if you are fine with that.
I'm t
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #568374 [debian-policy] debian-policy: section "8.4 Development files" not
explicit enough regarding libraryname[soversion]-dev
Bug #708566 [debian-policy] library -dev naming policy encourages unnecessary
transitions
Added tag(s) pending.
Added
Control: tag -1 pending
Ansgar Burchardt writes:
> I suggest to change
> | If there are development files associated with a shared
> | library, the source package needs to generate a binary
> | development package named librarynamesoversion-dev, or if you
> | prefer only to support one developm
Russ Allbery writes:
> Andreas Henriksson writes:
>> Soon one year anniversary so I thought a reminder might be in place for
>> the above question. This issue has wording suggestion with multiple
>> seconds.
>> (Please note that this noise is only directed at the list and not the
>> actual bug
10 matches
Mail list logo
