On Sun, 2011-04-03 at 20:44 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The bug:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/89038
>
> is still looking for two more seconds. This would allow us to retire the
> tiny separate mime-policy document. Could other folks take a look and
> confirm that all looks well?
>
> We sepa
h a non-UTF-8 encoding I
think that a Debian packager should be encouraged to patch that.
I would also be OK with mandating that filenames should only be in
either UTF-8 or the ASCII subset thereof, and that ISO-8859-* and other
such restric
On Sun, 2011-03-13 at 10:05 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As one of the (ex-)?dev-ref maintainers, I was also asked to comment by
> Raphael.
>
> Generally, I think that the patch goes in the right direction.
>
> I'd like to suggest changes to the last paragraph, though:
> Lack of atten
On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 22:29 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> jida...@jidanni.org writes:
> >> "RA" == Russ Allbery writes:
>
> > RA> No, I don't believe that it should. I don't think this is something
> > that
> > RA> we need to make technical Policy about.
>
> > RA> I'll leave this bug open f
On Sat, 2010-09-18 at 21:10 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Okay, here's new proposed wording that incorporates some of the discussion
> on this bug along with my personal opinion on the best wording. How does
> this look to everyone?
>
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 642f672..314d5
On Sat, 2010-09-11 at 23:47 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 04:15:15PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit :
> >
> > Capitalization is inconsistent across the patch. I guess you should fix
> > that.
>
> Ooops (correction attached).
>
I support the change, with the corr
On Sun, 2010-09-05 at 18:58 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Holger Levsen writes:
>
> > please clarify what the right behaviour should be and how failing to
> > install without a local db should be treated. Thanks.
>
> I agree with jcristau; I think it's reasonable to have database servers be
> in
f
> C.UTF-8, because
> this show that this actually work and is useful.
I agree. I think that the impact of having a guaranteed UTF-8 locale
available is only positive. It may be that nothing presently depends on
it, but for that very reason it should be fine to promote to the release
team for
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 17:05 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Andrew McMillan writes:
>
> > I would change the text around a little to add that to the beginning of
> > the paragraph, something like:
>
> > On GNU/Hurd systems the /hurd and
> > /server
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 12:05 -0400, CJ Fearnley wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:38:14AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > CJ Fearnley writes:
> >
> > > 2.2.1 The main archive area
> >
> > The main archive area comprises the Debian GNU/Linux distribution;
> > only the packages in this are
On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 04:17 -0700, PJ Weisberg wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Charles Plessy writes:
> >> Le Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:24:57AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> >>
> >>> In fields where the value may not span multiple lines, the amount
> >>>
."
might make it clearer when it stands on it's own.
Regards,
Andrew McMillan.
--
andrew (AT) morphoss (DOT) com+64(272)DEBIAN
The difference bet
On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 07:35 -0400, CJ Fearnley wrote:
> >
> > I don't think CJ is advocating changing the DFSG, but rather is concerned
> > that the way the DFSG is worded may not make it clear to people what the
> > motivation is and what the implications are for users. In other words, a
> > rep
nt that gives them their strength in policy. If they were to
place additional constraints on what software was acceptable in main it
would make policy more confusing, not less, and would undermine the DFSG
as a decision-making tool.
Regards,
Andrew McMillan
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 10:16 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Andrew McMillan writes:
>
> > My personal preference would be to encourage -doc packages to install
> > their files into /usr/share/doc//docs - including their
> > internal administrivia.
>
> That would
On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 10:05 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 03:23:26PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
> >
> >
> > I have been reading §5.1 (Syntax of control files) many times recently, and
> > would like propose clarifications about a couple of points. If consensus
> > e
proposed change can probably
be codified in some small number of scripts.
Cheers,
Andrew McMillan.
--
andrew (AT) morphoss (DOT) com
On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 14:28 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> On 25-Aug-2010, Ben Finney wrote:
> > However, the VCS repository also contains the rendered documents
> > themselves. Those should not be tracked in VCS; instead, they should
> > be generated from source as needed.
>
> I couldn't find a way t
put their name as a line in the changelog
saying something like:
* Packaging by Joe Cool for sponsored upload.
Regards,
Andrew McMillan.
--
andrew (AT) morphoss (DOT) com
On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 19:10 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Charles Plessy writes:
>
> > Information about the initial Debian maintainers partially overlaps the
> > information in debian/changelog, and the copyright statements for the
> > packaging work.
>
> Under normal circumstances, it always du
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 10:58 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Andrew McMillan writes:
> > On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 11:35 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> >> Ok, I agree that it would a good idea to include GPL-1 in common-licenses
> >> because of the high number of packa
On Sun, 2010-06-13 at 19:00 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Helps if I send this to the correct bug.
>
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
> > * maintainer-name-missing and uploader-name-missing are both automatic
> > rejects in the ftp-master checks, which makes them automatically
> > severity: serious i
On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 12:35 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Rémi Perrot" writes:
>
> > In section 12.5 of the policy it like that it is not possible to put
> > cgi script in /usr/lib/cgi-lib//
>
> > If this is true, we will have more and more file name conflict, and
> > these conflict are quite ha
On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 13:01 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> For background here, this bug is about permitting the splitting of the
> architecture-independent headers for a library into a separate -headers
> package rather than requiring (which the current Policy wording implies)
> that they be in the
On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 18:18 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 09:58:28AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> >
> > diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> > index 87b9795..99ab0ff 100644
> > --- a/policy.sgml
> > +++ b/policy.sgml
> > @@ -2398,6 +2398,11 @@ Package: libc6
> >
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 14:14 +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>
> Yes for new code, but old code cannot be relicensed easily:
> all authors should agree, but GPLv1 is very old, in periods
> where contribution did not have an email and "fix" (live-long)
> email address was not common.
It is:
(a)
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 11:35 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> Ok, I agree that it would a good idea to include GPL-1 in common-licenses
> because of the high number of packages still using it.
I'm sorry, but I disagree, for the time being. I do not believe that
large numbers of packages are delibe
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 18:31 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Charles Plessy writes:
>
> > I also like the idea, so I prepared a patch (attached)
>
> Thank you!
>
> > RFC 822 dates use only two digits for the years, but Debian changelogs
> > described by this paragraph (§4.4 in Policy 3.8.4) use fou
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 22:01 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 09:56:30 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Okay, here's another try at this patch that removes some extraneous
> > information that it sounds like we shouldn't get into, from this message
> > and your other messag
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 09:34 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The previous discussion on this bug didn't reach a final consensus on
> wording, but I still believe we have a consensus that this is the right
> general direction. Here's an updated patch that includes the permission
> suggested by Steve La
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 14:59 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 10:47:18AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > RFC 822 dates use only two digits for the years, but Debian changelogs
> > described by this paragraph (§4.4 in Policy 3.8.4) use four digits. This
> > patch
> > replaces
Seconded.
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 13:29 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
> > On Thu, Oct 29 2009, Simon Horman wrote:
>
> >> Could you suggest a policy-compliant method of creating fifos for the
> >> package? At the time that I added mknod to the maintainer script the
> >> con
t; + gnu-kfreebsd-amd64 == any-any-amd64
> +
A possibly confusing use of '==' there - would it be better to say 'is
matched by'?
Other than that quibble, I'm happy to second this.
Regards,
On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 15:46 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Chris Lamb writes:
>
> > If the motivation behind README.source is to highlight non-trivial
> > packaging, then many packages can be presented that are trivial dispite
> > using a patch system. My own conclusion is that the adoption of dpat
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 19:43 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think at this point, now that debconf is mandatory for all but essential
> packages, removing the guarantee of a controlling terminal is
> uncontroversial. This bug has been open for a while and I'd like to put
> it to bed. Here's propose
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 17:20 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 13:29:48 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > I formally object to the part '(in other words, the size in kibibytes)'.
> >
> > (I believe this change is not informative and only serve the purpose of
> > endorsing a s
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 09:42 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bill Allombert writes:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 07:49:40PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> Agreed. At the time Policy was originally written, kilobyte nearly
> >> universally meant kibibyte in the industry. I'll change this to:
>
>
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 12:22 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
> > Bill Allombert writes:
> >
> > > I would prefer if the word kibibyte was not used in policy, so I
> > > would strike '(in other words, the size in kibibytes)'.
> >
> > I don't much like the word either, but at th
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 00:17 -0400, Jonathan Yu wrote:
> >>
> >> Should this be something in the policy itself?
> >
> > I think so. But in general Policy doesn't document every possible
> > field, only the ones with Policy significance. dpkg from time to time
> > adds additional informational fiel
misinterpretation in the manner Julien suggests.
How about:
"... a list of specific and wildcard architectures separated by spaces,
or the special values 'any' or 'all'."
Cheers,
Andrew.
)
>
> Kernel: Linux 2.6.29-2-686 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
> Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
> Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
>
> debian-policy depends on no packages.
>
> debian-policy recommends no packages.
>
> Versions of packages debian-policy suggests:
>
ption, and I can't see the value of it from a technical perspective.
Regards,
Andrew McMillan.
--------
Andrew @ McMillan .Net .NZ Porirua, New Zealand
http://andrew.
On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 02:10 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> It is my recollection that each field in the control file (and
> perhaps others) was supposed to follow rfc822 (now rfc5322), and that
> says:
> ,
> |Each header field is logically a single line of characters comprisi
On Sat, 2009-05-09 at 06:45 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.8.1.0
> Severity: wishlist
> Tags: patch
>
> Hi!
>
> Recommend using the DEB_*_ARCH_CPU and DEB_*_ARCH_OS variables instead
> of the GNU style ones. And mention that the latter are mostly intended
> for
On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 07:35 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 21:04:30 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > we have an unfortunate situation where the practice in dpkg-buildpackage
> > and the policy do not match fully.
...
> So I think for next dpkg upload we should make dpkg-
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 15:31 +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>
> We have the same objective, but two different ways.
Indeed, but it seems to me that you are pushing for a much bigger change
than I am.
So the smallest step which is in the same direction both of us want to
go, is for *a* UTF-8 l
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 14:04 +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> + Russ Allbery (Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:33:41 -0700):
>
> > I don't see much real benefit in going out of our way to remove /var/games
> > and it looks like it would be a bit annoying (at the least, require adding
> > purge code to all games th
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 14:17 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mittwoch, 8. April 2009, Paul Wise wrote:
> > How about this:
> >
> > Game a gets installed and ships /var/games
> > Game b gets installed and ships /var/games
> > Game a gets purged and removes /var/games
> > User starts game b
; For testing? So why not test various locales (UTF-8, but also other non
> ascii based encodings)
What environments people build or test in is a separate issue to what
environments are available to them to build or test in, a
On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 22:32 +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>
> It is my impression that more packages than mksh could use an UTF-8
> locale at build time (I’m afraid I don’t have pointers, but I’m sure
> I’ve come across at least a couple).
>
> Wouldn’t it be just better to change Debian’s default t
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 21:57 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.8.1.0
> Severity: minor
>
> This looks extremely obsolete. I think it can just be removed.
>
> Seconds?
Seconded.
Regards,
Andrew.
>
> diff --git a/policy.sgml
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 03:34 +, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:07:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > NEW rejections are even stronger than an RC bug. Apart from questions of
> > whether that's useful documentation for users, I have a hard time seeing
> > either of your reasons
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 23:43 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 10:27 +1300, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> > That seems to be accepted by everyone, so I've pushed it to policy now.
> >
> > I hope that's the right thing... Please tell me if I've
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 16:44 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Andrew McMillan writes:
>
> > Here's an updated patch to apply the following wording:
> >
> > Package maintainer scripts may prompt the user if necessary.
> > Prompting must be done by co
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 13:59 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 09:13:19AM +1300, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 10:55 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > > Packages that are essential or that are dependencies of essential
> > >
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 10:55 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Packages that are essential or that are dependencies of essential
> packages may fall back on another prompting method if no such
> interface is available when they are executed.
Since we're essentially saying that all package
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 20:26 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Management Specification, version 2 or higher, unless no such
> > interface is available when they are executed.
> >
>
> Should we require that non-essential packages depend on debconf if they're
> going to do prompting?
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 14:42 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> I'm not sure how many of these were false positives, but I'm fairly sure
> that at least some of them are real:
>
> http://lintian.debian.org/tags/read-in-maintainer-script.html
Not all that many, and some will be false positives. I thi
reopen 509732
thanks
It is truly classic irony that we see this one getting closed by
spammers :-)
andrew (AT) morphoss (DOT) com+64(272)DEBIAN
Executive ability is prominent in your
permission and ownership of mailboxes
> > + unless required (such as when creating a new mailbox). A MUA
> > + may remove a mailbox (unless it has nonstandard permissions) in
> > + which case the MTA or another MUA must recreate it if needed.
> >
> >
the approval of the policy
> group, which, for this particular proposal, I understand it as three
> seconders (since I'm not proposing it myself) and no objections.
If Ari will propose this (it is his problem, after all) I am happy to be
o
GPL to the most recent version.
Regards,
Andrew.
--
_
Andrew McMillan, e-mail: Andrew @ catalyst . net . nz
Catalyst IT Ltd, PO Box 10-225, Level 22, 105 The Terrace, Wellington
Me: +64(21)635-694, Fax:+64(4)499-5596, Office: +64(4)499-2267xtn709
ten or
more.
Thanks for putting your proposal forward - I hope it's going to promote
some really valuable discussion.
Regards,
Andrew.
--
_
Andrew McMillan, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Catalyst IT Ltd, PO Box 10-225, Level 22, 105 The Terrace, Wellington
Me: +64 (21) 635 694, Fax: +64 (4) 499 5596, Office: +64 (4) 499 2267
the double-negative, and retains the strong _must_ without
becoming impenetrable.
Regards,
Andrew McMillan.
--
_____
Andrew McMillan, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Catalyst IT Ltd, PO Box 10-225,
64 matches
Mail list logo
