Previous, still open, bug from 2004:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=228692
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 01:49:59PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > After a discussion in #-devel today I reviewed packages using other
> > choices of "Rules-Requires-Root" than "no" and "binary-targets". The
> > query [1] found two uses:
> >
> > - wfrench 1.2.6-1. This could just use "no"; a bu
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 05:05:43PM +0200, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> > > Now we are more strict on where we can split filesystems
> > What do you mean?
>
> If I remember correctly, now we do not support / and /usr to be on a
> different filesystems
Not really, please read
https://freedesktop.org/w
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 04:10:00PM +0200, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> Now we are more strict on where we can split filesystems
What do you mean?
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Dec 08, 2019 at 02:25:41PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Sure, help fir that would be nice. Thanks for the offer.
> > > (Probably should have an own bug for that.) Nethertheless, this is the
> > > line that causes my problems and needs to be transferred:
> > > https://salsa.debian.org/
On Sun, Dec 08, 2019 at 09:54:23AM +0100, Tobias Frost wrote:
> Sure, help fir that would be nice. Thanks for the offer.
> (Probably should have an own bug for that.) Nethertheless, this is the
> line that causes my problems and needs to be transferred:
> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/gmrender-re
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:28:53AM +, Dudziak Krzysztof wrote:
> > > Well, however the phrase of text myself complains about tells -fPIC
> > > must be used if package is built for any architecture. Do I read then
> > > understand
> > that phrase properly?
> > Yes, the policy requires you to us
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:06:55AM +, Dudziak Krzysztof wrote:
> Well, however the phrase of text myself complains about tells -fPIC must be
> used
> if package is built for any architecture. Do I read then understand that
> phrase properly?
Yes, the policy requires you to use PIC when buildi
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 10:39:39AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> Isn't it that way for shared libraries IN GENERAL to need be compiled
> >> as position-independent code then linked as such ?
>
> > No, one could also register the virtual addresses for all shared
> > libraries in a central databas
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 01:02:59PM +, Dudziak Krzysztof wrote:
> Thanks for feedback from you.
>
> > > Isn't it that way for shared libraries IN GENERAL to need be compiled
> > > as position-independent code then linked as such ?
> > Not in theory.
> Ansgar kindly elaborated the point bit more
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 10:50:08AM +, Dudziak Krzysztof wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have troubles on comprehending following statement
> "If the package is architecture: any, then the shared library compilation and
> linking flags must have -fPIC.."
> Cit. Debian Policy, chapter 10.2,
> https://www.d
On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 10:29:26PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> For package where upstream do not use the autotools, using dh can be
> quite inconvenient compared to plain debhelper.
$ dh_auto_configure --list
autoconf GNU Autoconf (configure)
perl_build Perl Module::Build
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 06:13:17PM -0600, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> P.S. Somebody on #debian-mentors was able to do a
> search today for all the packages which, I think,
> contained mention of "reboot-required". I don't
> know what they did or how they did it.
> There was a list of maybe 15 or 20 pac
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 01:35:01PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 04:55:11PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > From these two at least VFAT, while case-insensitive, is case-preserving.
> > ISO9660 without both Rock Ridge and Joliet is, I suspect, already
On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 01:05:34PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > This allows the possibility of uppercase letters [1]. But of course
> > > distinguishing case of letters is troublesome for some computers.
> >
> > Can you please explain why is this a problem for us?
>
> People should be able to
On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 12:34:30AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> This allows the possibility of uppercase letters [1]. But of course
> distinguishing case of letters is troublesome for some computers.
Can you please explain why is this a problem for us?
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PG
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.2.1.2
Severity: normal
It seems to me that the consensus is that doc-base is not actually useful and
so 9.10. Registering Documents using doc-base can be dropped.
lintian has an I: possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration tag, with
1872 emitted current
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 07:48:48AM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst
> > index 9e7d79c..c35e994 100644
> > --- a/policy/ch-source.rst
> > +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst
> > @@ -277,6 +277,13 @@ reproduce the same binary package, all required
> > ta
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 06:10:42PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst
> > index 9e7d79c..83721f5 100644
> > --- a/policy/ch-source.rst
> > +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst
> > @@ -277,6 +277,13 @@ reproduce the same binary package, all required
> > ta
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:35:48AM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > diff --git a/policy/ch-docs.rst b/policy/ch-docs.rst
> > index 1de221f..1503ed8 100644
> > --- a/policy/ch-docs.rst
> > +++ b/policy/ch-docs.rst
> > @@ -255,32 +255,48 @@ files may be installed into
> > ``/usr/share/doc/package``.
>
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 02:34:06PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Honestly, if this is going to become a requirement, and I didn't want to
> be bothered with it, I would just use . rather than : as my epoch
> separator whenever I need to introduce an epoch. The result regarding
> upgrades etc is *
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 06:40:46PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > I would like to establish a way to prevent this.
> > Why would the project do that, though?
>
> Because...
>
> > > We should aim for most of the changes necessary for
> > > such derivatives to be in Debian proper, so the derivati
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 01:52:18PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I would like to establish a way to prevent this.
Why would the project do that, though?
> (There are even whole Debian derivatives who have as one of their
> primary goals, preventing this.
Good.
> We should aim for most of the chang
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 06:02:23AM -0700, 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.
According to https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/unifont it haven't migrated at
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 06:33:42PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Per the discussion in #871944
There is no discussion there.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 01:45:10PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.1.0.0
> Severity: normal
>
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#version
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/index.html#introduction
>
> etc.
>
>
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.0.0
Severity: normal
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#version
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/index.html#introduction
etc.
This breaks the ToC.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: buster/sid
APT prefers unstable-debug
APT policy: (5
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 08:55:45AM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:28:37AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > I didn't even know this syntax was allowed, and now that I do I'd love
> > to use it.
>
> Happy to have confirmation that some clarity is needed :)
>
> > Do you kno
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 11:01:41AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Nowadays orphaning is done by reuploading the package with the
> > > maintainer set to the QA group rather than using a O: wnpp bug.
> > Huh?
>
> See:
> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch05.html#orphaning
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 10:46:19PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:59:40AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > An O: bug means that it is confirmed that the package is orphaned, and
> > > gives permission to everyone to adopt the package immediately.
> >
> > So just file an
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 09:57:32PM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
> "Font packages must invoke update-fonts-dir on each directory into
> which they install fonts. This invocation must occur in both the
> postinst (for all arguments) and postrm (for all arguments except
> upgrade) scripts."
>
> Strictly
On Sun, Jul 02, 2017 at 01:39:13PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> 2.5
>
>
> Priorities are now used only for controlling which packages
> are part of a minimal or standard Debian installation and
> should be selected based on fu
Seconded.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 12:02:38PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here's an updated patch that also fixes the other examples.
Seconded.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
I'm seconding the last version too.
According to the same codesearch link there are 164 packages now, let's
move this forward.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 04:30:57PM +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> Hello Andrey Rahmatullin.
>
> Thanks for your input. (Did you also look at the other patches in the
> series? Any objections or support for any of them?)
I did and I thought I don't have enough confidence to s
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:07:21PM +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> The dh_make program should generate the current best practises
> version
I'm not sure about this.
And this is the first mention of dh_make in the policy except for a
footnote about writing manpages.
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:0
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:00:28AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > > e.g. if you have a package 1.0 and add a complete branch update as a patch
> > > (or upgrade to a snapshot) one should do a 1.0+gitYYYDDMM-1 or whatever
> > > format
> > > you choose. Not 1.0-15 or so.
> > Here the question is "
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 07:44:11PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> e.g. if you have a package 1.0 and add a complete branch update as a patch
> (or upgrade to a snapshot) one should do a 1.0+gitYYYDDMM-1 or whatever format
> you choose. Not 1.0-15 or so.
Here the question is "if you package unreleas
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 05:56:46PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I have noticed that packages are using architecture specifiers in
> their dependency information, for example dh-python depends on
> 'python3:any (>= 3.3.2-2~)'. However, there is no mention of this
> syntax that I could find in the
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 06:41:12PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> via a script that indents the license
> text by 1 space and puts "." on blank lines.
This sounds like a thing caused solely by DEP-5 (which some people tend to
ignore, because of such things).
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Descript
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:40:01PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> thanks for reminding us of #768292. I think that it reached broad consensus
> for the addition of the MPLs to /usr/share/common-licenses.
>
> I attached a patch that modifies the Policy accordingly.
Seconded.
--
WBR, wRAR
sign
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:18:29AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> So to summary:
> Policy 11.2 recommends:
> strip --strip-unneeded
> dh_strip does:
> strip --strip-unneeded --remove-section=.comment --remove-section=.note
> install -s does currently:
> strip --strip-unneeded
> lintian checks
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:45:25AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> This is the relevant part of the FHS (ill-advised imho, but required by the
> LSB):
>
> -
>
> 6.1.5. /lib64 and /lib32 : 64/32-bit libraries (architecture dependent)
>
> The 64-bit archit
On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 07:24:12PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Section 11.2 says
>
> strip --strip-unneeded your-lib
This is still true (the section is 10.2 though).
> Lintian, however, complains if the sections .comment or .note are
> present, which strip doesn't think are unneeded.
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 07:14:07PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:23:17AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > Control: tags -1 + patch
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 11:19:15AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > > How about the attached pa
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 05:38:50PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > 2.2.1 says "the packages in main
> >
> >must not require or recommend a package outside of main for compilation
> > or
> > execution (thus, the package must not declare a
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 09:24:15PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > 2.2.1 says "the packages in main
> >
> >must not require or recommend a package outside of main for compilation
> > or
> > execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Pre-Depends", "Depends",
> > "Recommends", "Build-Dep
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 06:16:19PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> >The current practice is to not repeat the synopsis and this is enforced by
> >lintian since 2002, with an E tag:
> [...]
> > Ref: policy 3.4.2
>
> Lintian should probably refer to DevRef§6.2.3 instead.
Basing an E tag on just DevRef
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 10:55:44AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> triggered by #209693, the question is, if the long description should
> be understandable on its own, or together with the short description.
>
> Description: Documentation for an array processing package for Python
> This
Control: tags -1 + patch
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 04:31:52PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Lintian has a tag:
>
> Tag: symlink-has-too-many-up-segments
> Severity: serious
> Certainty: certain
> Ref: policy 10.5
> Info: The symlink references a directory beyond the root directory "/".
>
> for syml
Control: tags -1 + patch
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 11:19:15AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> How about the attached patch, that adds "Its value must not be empty."
> after "The field ends at the end of the line or at the end of the last
> continuation line".
Seconded.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 02:55:00PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> There is some lack of clarity in the policy or perhaps some confusion among
> packagers and thence inconsistencies among packages regarding the handling of
> upstream changelog files. Policy says that upstream changelogs should be
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 12:51:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > During a recent discussion on debian-devel about multiarch, it was shown
> > > that gzip does not always produce the exact same output from a given
> > > input file.
> > >
> > > While it was shown that removing the requirement
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 09:24:15PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I guess that it is implicit from the defintion of contrib that follows in
> 2.2.2:
>
> The contrib archive area contains supplemental packages intended to work
> with
> the Debian distribution, but which require software outsi
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
2.2.1 says "the packages in main
must not require or recommend a package outside of main for compilation or
execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Pre-Depends", "Depends",
"Recommends", "Build-Depends", or "Build-Depends-Indep" relationship o
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Hereinafter "libraries" means "public shared libraries" per Policy §8 and only
them.
I couldn't find in the Policy anything about underlinked libraries while I
believe that having them is wrong and should be considered a bug.
I mean libraries that are no
57 matches
Mail list logo
