Bug#910783: Remove doc-base recommendation

On 2018-10-12 10:16, Bill Allombert wrote: On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 01:04:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: Andrey Rahmatullin writes ("Bug#910783: Remove doc-base recommendation"): > Package: debian-policy > Version: 4.2.1.2 > Severity: normal > > It seems to me that the consensus is that doc-base

Bug#908933: debian-policy: typo in document in section 3.4 page no 15 line number 16 needs improvement.

On Sun, 2018-09-16 at 14:01 +0530, Jaikumar Sharma wrote: > debian-policy has typo under section 3.4 The description of the > package page no.15 and line number 16 has following text which needs > improvement in spelling of 'administratrivia' . > ** text from policy** > Copyright statements and oth

Re: Bug#908155: Coordination with upstream developers not universally applied

On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 18:42 +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Short answer (slightly drunk and short on time), more later: > > On Fri, 7 Sep 2018, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > In some packages this will not be possible at least for some bug > > reports.  You've seen the poor quality and hard-to-follow-

Bug#907915: developers-reference: language in manual

On 2018-09-04 03:52, Paul Hardy wrote: With Debian presenting itself as a distribution suitable for children in educational environments, please consider removing the "f-bombs" in this package. As a fundamental document in Debian, it is something that should be acceptable for school children to

Bug#864615: please update version of posix standard for scripts (section 10.4)

On Sat, 2017-10-14 at 11:30 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > control: tag -1 +moreinfo > > Hello Ralf, > > On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 06:51:49PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote: > > section 10.4 says: > > > >   Scripts may assume that /bin/sh implements the SUSv3 Shell > > Command > >   Language ... > > > >

Bug#878033: developers-reference: typos, etc.

On 2017-10-09 14:02, Paul Hardy wrote: I gave unifont 1:10.0.04-1 an urgency of low, and yet it migrated to testing after 5 days. That was in July. I have only used "urgency=medium" since then. It sounds like whatever happened was temporary. Ah. Looking at that a bit further, that was due to

Bug#878033: developers-reference: typos, etc.

On 2017-10-08 23:51, Paul Hardy wrote: Section 5.13.2: low priority packages no longer wait 10 days to migrate to testing; they wait 5 days now. If this is a permanent change, I would update this section. What makes you think that? The live configuration for britney has: MINDAYS_LOW = 1

Bug#542288: debian-policy: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

On Sat, 2017-07-01 at 16:00 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 04:01:43PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > One rarer case is missing here: > > > > > 1.2.3-4~deb9u1 > > > Everything in 1.2.3-4 from unstable was in fact needed in Debian > > > 9, so it was simply rebuilt for Deb

Bug#850289: debian-policy: Patch so that there is an Example section in manual pages

On Thu, 2017-01-05 at 23:50 +0530, shirish शिरीष wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Version: 3.9.8.0 > Tags: patch > Severity: wishlist > > Dear Maintainer, > As shared in #850171 it would be nice if we have Example section in > manpages. This would be especially useful for non-technical users and

Bug#845715: debian-policy: Please document that packages are not allowed to write outside their source directories

On Sat, 2016-11-26 at 03:34 +, Johannes Schauer wrote: > + None of the required targets must attempt to write outside of the You either mean "The required targets must not attempt" or "None of the required targets may attempt"; the current wording means "None of the required targets is

Bug#831047: debian-policy: two Debian Policy versions were released, but not announced on d-devel-announce

On 2016-07-14 9:22, Bill Allombert wrote: On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:33:00PM +0200, Francesco Poli (wintermute) wrote: I found the announce [2] of version 3.9.7.0, but it was apparently sent to debian-devel@l.d.o, rather than to debian-devel-announce@l.d.o ! [2] https://lists.debian.org/debia

Bug#807742: developer-reference: Italian Translation

On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 20:24 +0200, Pierangelo Mancusi wrote: > Dear Maintainer, > > count_month=4; The last upload of developers-reference was before you submitted your translation (of what wasn't even the current version at the time), so grumbling once a month that it's not been included is unli

Bug#776557: debian-policy: Please clarify 2.5 'unix heritage >= important'

On 2015-01-29 16:55, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, Bill Allombert: [...] - by apt-get: the pdiff system use ed scripts which I assume has a dependency on ed. apt uses an internal implementation. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subje

Bug#685992: /usr/sbin/update-flashplugin-nonfree: Please restore selinux context after installing files

On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 12:13 +0200, Dominick Grift wrote: > Let's not compare init scripts with dpkg scripts. > > The issue at hand here is that dpkg, and dpkg scripts do not install >files with the correct context. So far as I can tell, that's very much _not_ the issue at hand. This bug is precis

Bug#704657: debian/rules: Inconsistent required targets

On 04.04.2013 09:04, Bill Allombert wrote: On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 09:23:07AM +0200, Philipp Hahn wrote: Package: debian-policy Severity: normal Quoting from > The following targets are required... : >clean, >binar

Bug#704657: debian/rules: Inconsistent required targets

On 04.04.2013 08:23, Philipp Hahn wrote: According to the lintian description in "build-arch" and "build-indep" should be added to the paragraph above as required targets. The URL you quoted says that the targets are

Bug#703022: debian-policy: Appendix G: Diversion example faulty (doesn't work for conffiles)

On 14.03.2013 17:34, Russ Allbery wrote: The last time I looked at this (which was several years ago), diverting conffiles had enough problems that it was tempting to just say that it didn't work reliably. I wonder if we should explicitly recommend against diverting conffiles, or if some of th

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

On Sun, 2012-02-26 at 17:01 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 04:00:11PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Oh, yes, I misunderstood that too. How about: > > > These maintainer scripts must not call the upstart > > start, restart, reload, or > > stop inter

Bug#622263: debian-policy: Phrasing of 5.6.25 (DMUA) is confusing

On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 16:54 +0200, Didier Raboud wrote: > We just had a short discussion on IRC (#debian-python, 2011-04-11) about the > phrasing of the new 5.6.25 paragraph (which documents the DMUA field). > > The current phrasing makes it sound that adding the DM-Upload-Allowed field > to each

Bug#490605: debian-policy: please discourage the usage of echo -n, and echo in general

On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 14:14 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > Consider this example: the safe "printf" way to do > echo $BAR > is > printf "%s\n" "$BAR" > > (in case BAR hold a value like BAR="%s a") > So printf is slightly unwiedly to use and it can create > format string attack. It does, however,

Re: Architecture in *.dsc files

On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 11:19 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Well, but that doesn't answer the more fundamental question. What does > an Architecture field like: > > i386 amd64 all > > in a *.dsc file mean? Currently, Policy is silent here. That the binary packages referenced by the .dsc file

Bug#523348: debian-policy: upgrading-checklist states policy 3.8.1.0 as "unreleased"

package debian-policy forcemerge 519706 523348 thanks Hi, Philipp Huebner wrote: /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz still states policy 3.8.1.0 as "unreleased", which is confusing to read while lintian already complains that 3.8.0 is outdated. This has already been report

Re: lintian.debian.org update plan?

On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 15:10 +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote: > Just a question, how's about update lintian.d.o plan? > Now it complains "3.8.1" is newer policy or so... ;) There's an update run currently in progress. We were hoping it might have finished by now, but it isn't quite there yet. Hopefu

Bug#514919: Removing support for uploads to multiple distributions

On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 22:59 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > As far as I know, the archive maps uploads to testing to > testing-proposed-updates, and so both end up in t-p-u. That's correct. The s-p-u and t-p-u uploads I've made for devscripts all had either "stable" or "testing" in the changelog. Ad

Bug#514919: Removing support for uploads to multiple distributions

On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 12:19 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > I now have: > > + The testing distribution normally receives > + its packages via the unstable distribution > + after a short time lag. However sometimes, such as > + d

Bug#514919: Removing support for uploads to multiple distributions

On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 19:20 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Here's a proposed patch that limits the footnote to only discussing the > values that go into *.changes files, removes extraneous information about > the relative risk of unstable vs. testing, and mentions the other values > commonly seen in

Bug#514919: Removing support for uploads to multiple distributions

On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 19:35 +, Mark Hymers wrote: > In gmane.linux.debian.devel.policy, you wrote: > > I think it's worth mentioning in the policy footnote that the Debian > > archive doesn't (well, won't, to be entirely accurate) support the > > feature and removing the suggestion that there i

Bug#514919: Removing support for uploads to multiple distributions

On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 19:11 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > I agree that dak not currently supporting multiple-distribution upload > is not a reason to change policy about the format of the .changes files, > since this is well supported by dpkg and other tools and can be useful > with other upload q

Bug#514919: Removing support for uploads to multipledistributions

Colin Watson wrote, Thursday, February 12, 2009 10:47 AM For Debian's archive, I think this change is entirely reasonable. However, I'm not convinced that it is correct to remove this feature from the *syntax*. While Ubuntu's archive maintenance software doesn't support it right now, several peo

Bug#514919: Removing support for uploads to multiple distributions

Package: debian-policy Version: 3.8.1.0 Severity: wishlist Hi, The Policy section detailing the "Distribution" field in .changes files specifies that the field may contain a space-separated list of distributions. Whilst this is technically accurate, the feature has been deprecated since the "test

Re: horizontal line in footnote #29

On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 10:30 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Ronny Standtke writes: > > > I just noticed that there is a horizontal line in footnote #29 which > > probably > > does not belong there: > > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/footnotes.html#f29 > > Huh, there is indeed, but I'm no

Re: font policy - maintainerless program

On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 16:58 -0700, Paul Hardy wrote: > I have been getting ready to release a font plus sources and auxiliary > programs for Debian. The Policy Manual requires using the > update-fonts-dir script when installing a font. > > I was going to post a change to the update-fonts-dir scri

Bug#484511: Urgencies should all be lower case

On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 22:40 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: [...] > With this patch applied, I think that these bugs are now moot, but I > wanted to check before closing them. Is there any further work required > in britney to treat urgencies as case-insensitive, or does the change in > the log file wr

Re: Processed: Taking manoj's advice for how to get a practice inplace

Hi, Osamu Aoki wrote: [...] Dan, I know you are frequent BTS reporter. So I expect you to know better than newbie reporter. Please do not use "bts" command for this kind of situation. Please make sure to get full information to the package owner. I had to dig into bts web site. This is not

Bug#473439: debian-policy: Debian Policy inconsistent with Developer's Reference

On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 11:30 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Meike Reichle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > When doing my NM I noticed an inconsistency between the Debian Policy > > and the Developer's Reference concerning the use of the terms "section" > > and "category". [...] > The control field

Re: should executables be permitted to update themselves?

On Sun, 2007-01-14 at 11:23 +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 12:26:15AM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > is there a policy on whether an executable is permitted to update itself? i > > personally believe that in order to maintain the security of the system, apt > > and apt alone

Bug#369912: debian-policy: 2.2 should be named 'categories'

On Friday, June 02, 2006 7:53 AM, Thomas Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Policy's table of contents currently reads: > 2.2. Sections > 2.2.1. The main category > 2.2.2. The contrib category > 2.2.3. The non-free category > 2.3. Copyrigh

Re: [bug] references to dpkg-shlibdeps should be dh_shlibdeps

On Friday, March 31, 2006 1:39 PM, Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Section: >8.6.2 How to use dpkg-shlibdeps and the shlibs files > > ! Put a call to dpkg-shlibdeps into your debian/rules file. If your >package contains only compiled binaries and libraries (but no >scripts),

Bug#344158: The FHS is from 2000 and should be updated

package debian-policy severity 344158 wishlist merge 344158 230217 thanks On Tuesday, December 20, 2005 2:17 PM, Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Version: 3.6.1.1 > Severity: normal > > Error description: > > The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard in > > /