Bug#567033: Decide if we should continue recommending /usr/games

2023-09-11 Thread Antoine Beaupré
On 2023-09-11 19:57:16, Bill Allombert wrote: [...] > On the other hand, /usr/games allows: > - priviledged accounts to omit /usr/games in their path (root does not have > it e.g) I said it elsewhere but I'll repeat it here, if we want a separation there, we already have another mechanism for t

Bug#567033: Decide if we should continue recommending /usr/games

2023-09-11 Thread Antoine Beaupré
On 2023-09-11 11:25:34, Russ Allbery wrote: > Antoine Beaupré writes: > >> I get the argument against bad binaries not being in PATH but we have >> some tooling for that, don't we? /usr/libexec, no? > > /usr/libexec isn't a replacement because it's not on an

Bug#567033: Decide if we should continue recommending /usr/games

2023-09-11 Thread Antoine Beaupré
On 2023-09-11 19:11:30, Simon McVittie wrote: [...] > Disclosure: I am a co-maintainer with Alexandre of the game-data-packager > package, which installs proprietary game data into /usr/share/games, some > of it much larger than the vast majority of games we package in Debian; and > I think conve

Bug#567033: Decide if we should continue recommending /usr/games

2023-09-11 Thread Antoine Beaupré
On 2023-09-11 10:19:13, Russ Allbery wrote: [...] > I am inclined to agree; it's just one more thing for people to think about > while packaging things, and I don't think it serves much of a useful > purpose. However, the bug log has a couple of concrete objections. For the record, I actually r

Bug#567033: Decide if we should continue recommending /usr/games

2023-09-11 Thread Antoine Beaupré
On 2018-06-14 11:42:22, Simon McVittie wrote: > Debian can choose to put games in the /.../games directories, or in the > standard directories /usr/bin, /usr/share etc., or any mixture of our > choice, orthogonal to whether/when we move to FHS 3.0. It's been a while since this was discussed, but I

[developers-reference] branch master updated (336fe5c -> 2077fb5)

2017-09-26 Thread Antoine Beaupré
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. anarcat pushed a change to branch master in repository developers-reference. from 336fe5c Standards-Version: 4.0.0 new 2077fb5 expand documentation on upload notifications The 1 revisions listed above as "new"

[developers-reference] branch master updated (b6c9b17 -> 0dc5821)

2016-10-08 Thread Antoine Beaupré
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. anarcat pushed a change to branch master in repository developers-reference. from b6c9b17 clarify what the p-u changelog should contain new 0dc5821 clarify that the release team wants a source debdiff The 1 rev

Re: [developers-reference] 02/03: clarify how the patch should be made for p-u

2016-10-08 Thread Antoine Beaupré
On 2016-10-07 22:08:10, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Can we please make that “a source debdiff”? We've already seen > binary(-only) debdiffs… Done. Note that the developer's reference is in collab-maint and any DD can make those changes, provided they are familiar enough with git. ssh://git.debian.o

[developers-reference] 01/01: clarify that the release team wants a source debdiff

2016-10-08 Thread Antoine Beaupré
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. anarcat pushed a commit to branch master in repository developers-reference. commit 0dc5821d7b4e27b108285707abeec8dd64fc4924 Author: Antoine Beaupré Date: Sat Oct 8 11:07:11 2016 -0400 clarify that the release team wants

[developers-reference] branch master updated (bf19a79 -> b6c9b17)

2016-10-03 Thread Antoine Beaupré
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. anarcat pushed a change to branch master in repository developers-reference. from bf19a79 clarify PGP keyring maintenance updates (Closes: #824038) new 623e655 clarify that we use the literal codename in stable

[developers-reference] branch master updated (144de7e -> bf19a79)

2016-10-03 Thread Antoine Beaupré
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. anarcat pushed a change to branch master in repository developers-reference. from 144de7e upload to unstable new bf19a79 clarify PGP keyring maintenance updates (Closes: #824038) The 1 revisions listed above as

[developers-reference] 03/03: clarify what the p-u changelog should contain

2016-10-03 Thread Antoine Beaupré
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. anarcat pushed a commit to branch master in repository developers-reference. commit b6c9b17958d7e7840cfb6a4ef1a2b82562d3f750 Author: Antoine Beaupré Date: Mon Oct 3 10:13:14 2016 -0400 clarify what the p-u changelog

[developers-reference] 02/03: clarify how the patch should be made for p-u

2016-10-03 Thread Antoine Beaupré
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. anarcat pushed a commit to branch master in repository developers-reference. commit 6d8601bf8adb048e9239b56824e092b5528c76bb Author: Antoine Beaupré Date: Mon Oct 3 10:11:53 2016 -0400 clarify how the patch should be made

[developers-reference] 01/03: clarify that we use the literal codename in stable updates

2016-10-03 Thread Antoine Beaupré
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. anarcat pushed a commit to branch master in repository developers-reference. commit 623e655c08c594086d1d5db435f58bb46332 Author: Antoine Beaupré Date: Mon Oct 3 10:08:26 2016 -0400 clarify that we use the literal

[developers-reference] 01/01: clarify PGP keyring maintenance updates (Closes: #824038)

2016-10-03 Thread Antoine Beaupré
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. anarcat pushed a commit to branch master in repository developers-reference. commit bf19a79a7aa881108588fd67184ab4de7eb9e44d Author: Antoine Beaupré Date: Mon Oct 3 10:04:24 2016 -0400 clarify PGP keyring maintenance

Bug#824038: PGP keyring maintenance is unclear about further references and updates

2016-05-11 Thread Antoine Beaupré
Source: developers-reference Severity: normal Tags: patch I was trying to figure out how to update keys in the debian keyring, specifically after expiry. I read what seemed to be the right section to me here: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch03.en.html#key-maint But this

Bug#807441: Acknowledgement (rename procedure out of date)

2015-12-08 Thread Antoine Beaupré
It should also be "Breaks" and not "Conflicts", apparently. But this seriously needs to be reviewed... a. -- Religion is like a blind man looking in a black room for a black cat that isn't there, and finding it. - Oscar Wilde

Bug#807441: rename procedure out of date

2015-12-08 Thread Antoine Beaupré
Source: developers-reference Severity: normal The procedure documented here is badly out of date: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch05.en.html#s5.9.3 Among other things, it does not mention dummy packages and imposes unnecessary load on FTP masters. The procedure here se