Bug#970234: consider dropping "No hard links in source packages"

Hi Russ, On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 07:20:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > From 12b014c4b930577a728dfb1254b64aac6a5eb1e0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Russ Allbery > Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 19:15:52 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH] Allow hard links in source packages > > It's not clear why this restrict

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 970234 ...

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#970234: consider dropping "No hard links in source packages"

Russ Allbery writes: > The fact that this has gone unnoticed in a source package in an existing > release makes a pretty strong argument that nothing in Debian cares and > we should just remove the constraint. Here is a patch dropping the restriction on hard links in source packages that I think

Bug#968226: Move documentation of Build-Depends alternative selection out of footnote

Wouter Verhelst writes: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 07:17:17PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Wouter Verhelst writes: >>> Thanks, yeah, I missed that. I'll have a stab at a patch some time soon >>> (probably after debconf though) >> Here, a couple of years later, is a patch that does this, and whi

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, tagging 1020267

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#1020248: [Git][dbnpolicy/policy][master] 2 commits: Use stanza to refer to deb822 parts instead of paragraph

Charles Plessy writes: > In the spec, the word "paragraph" is only used in the specified context, > so I always felt that there is no ambiguity. But of course, it can > create opportunities for misunderstanding when discussing about the > spec. So point taken about "paragraph", although interes

Bug#1020267: Essential packages only provide functionality after being configured

Guillem Jover writes: > On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 20:27:46 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Helmut Grohne writes: >>> […] It can be made explicit in section 3.8 quite easily: >>> Since dpkg will not prevent upgrading of other packages while an >>> ``essential`` package is in an unconfigured state, al

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, tagging 823256

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#823256: debian-policy: Update maintscript arguments with dpkg >= 1.18.5

Russ Allbery writes: > Here is a patch that I believe implements that, and which I think is > ready for seconds. Thanks for the review, both. This has now been applied for the next release. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)

Bug#1020267: Essential packages only provide functionality after being configured

Hi! On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 20:27:46 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Helmut Grohne writes: > > […] It can be made explicit in section 3.8 quite easily: > > > Since dpkg will not prevent upgrading of other packages while an > > ``essential`` package is in an unconfigured state, all ``essential`` > >

Bug#998282: Please make Section a required field for the source paragraph in d/control

Hi! On Tue, 2022-09-20 at 19:36:36 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Felix Lechner writes: > > The installable stanzas in d/control (called "binary package paragraphs" > > in policy) inherit the Section field from the source paragraph. There is > > no reason to provide inheritance the other way around

Bug#953911: debian-policy: clarify documentation of "Closes: #NNNNNN" changelog syntax

Hi! On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 21:42:37 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > "Daniel Shahaf" writes: > > Here's a revision of the patch incorporating the feedback so far: > > Thank you for this patch! I confirmed that your description matches the > regular expression. This has now been applied for the next

Bug#1020248: [Git][dbnpolicy/policy][master] 2 commits: Use stanza to refer to deb822 parts instead of paragraph

Hi! On Thu, 2022-09-22 at 14:26:38 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 06:08:16PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : > > I do find the use of paragraph the way we were previously using it to > > be confusing, particularly given that the paragraphs contain fields > > which in turn con

Bug#963524: debian-policy: Binary and Description fields not mandatory in .changes on source-only uploads

Hi! On Tue, 2022-09-20 at 21:21:23 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Here is a patch to fix this wording in Policy. I think it's ready for > seconds. > >From c98654d7effa875c6e11da16159ac3feded8f763 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Russ Allbery > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 21:17:55 -0700 > Subject: [PAT

Bug#823256: debian-policy: Update maintscript arguments with dpkg >= 1.18.5

Hi! On Tue, 2022-09-20 at 18:52:22 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Here is a patch that I believe implements that, and which I think is ready > for seconds. > >From 2260f7a3aafe93282860aad07b7d8c1544bcf0ce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Russ Allbery > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 18:49:04 -0700 > Subje

Bug#963524: debian-policy: Binary and Description fields not mandatory in .changes on source-only uploads

Hello, On Tue 20 Sep 2022 at 09:21PM -07, Russ Allbery wrote: > In .changes files for source-only uploads, the Binary and > Description fields are not present. Document this, and be clearer > in the description of the Description field for .changes files that > only descriptions of binary packag

Bug#823256: debian-policy: Update maintscript arguments with dpkg >= 1.18.5

Hello, On Tue 20 Sep 2022 at 06:52PM -07, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Starting with dpkg 1.18.5, several maintainer script actions > involving a new package version get that version as an argument > after the old version. Update Policy's maintainer script > documentation accordingly. > --- > policy/

Processed: Re: Bug#992136: Don't require Standards-Version field when only udebs Standards-Version for udeb packages

Processing control commands: > tag -1 + pending Bug #992136 [debian-policy] Don't require Standards-Version field when only udebs Standards-Version for udeb packages Added tag(s) pending. -- 992136: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=992136 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow..

Bug#992136: Don't require Standards-Version field when only udebs Standards-Version for udeb packages

control: tag -1 + pending Hello, On Tue 20 Sep 2022 at 06:39PM -07, Russ Allbery wrote: > diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > index 428b8a7..ea8f4a3 100644 > --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > @@ -540,6 +540,9 @@ Thus only