again, hopefully with a patch.
* Bill Allombert [2014-03-23 16:56 +0100]:
> On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 12:13:22AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > Please suggest delegating binary name conflicts to the tech-ctte in last
>
* Raphael Hertzog [2012-07-13 09:00 +0200]:
> Guillem introduced the --control-list and --control-show interfaces …
>
> If … , we should IMO create a new package that will hook into dpkg
> --post-invoke and …
>
> … should create dpkg --changelog and dpkg --copyright …
[epoch:]upstream_version[-deb
* Jonathan Nieder [2012-05-04 17:35 -0500]:
> Carsten Hey wrote:
> > * Patrick Ouellette [2012-05-04 13:38 -0400]:
>
> >> If you read the entire section 7.4 is seems entirely reasonable to
> >> create a package with an executable name that already exists in Debian
>
* Patrick Ouellette [2012-05-04 13:38 -0400]:
> "Conflicts should be used
>
> when two packages provide the same file and will continue to do so"
/usr/bin/sendmail is provided by citadel-mta, courier-mta, dma,
esmtp-run, exim4-daemon-heavy, exim4-daemon-light, ...
That is what the policy mean
jni@slip-61-16.ots.utexas.edu>
* Russ Allbery [2012-05-01 10:28 -0700]:
> Carsten Hey writes:
>
> > The origin of what the policy suggests to do if there is no consensus is
> > a mail from Guy Maor <879142cjni@slip-61-16.ots.utexas.edu>, in
> > which he write
Package: debian-policy
Hi,
"2.4 Sections" is missing the section 'tasks':
projectb=> select s.section, s.created from section s where s.section = 'tasks';
section |created
-+---
tasks | 2011-04-01 15:31:59.554227+00
This section is also missi
* Russ Allbery [2012-03-16 19:05 -0700]:
> Charles Plessy writes:
> > Le Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 02:46:15PM +0100, Carsten Hey a écrit :
>
> >> In general, debian/README.source does not contain information how to
> >> run, for example, autoconf and friends to convert a
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [2012-02-18 10:11 -0200]:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012, Carsten Hey wrote:
> > The intention of this bug report is to unify the name of a target
> > that might be used more often soon, and it is not sufficient to
> > reach this goal if we rely on p
* Russ Allbery [2012-01-05 09:25 -0800]:
> This is the bug concerning the wording in current Policy 2.2.1:
>
> In addition, the packages in main
>
> * must not require a package outside of main for compilation or
>execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends",
>
* Julian Gilbey [2012-02-17 12:28 +]:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:14:00AM +0100, Carsten Hey wrote:
> > Package: developers-reference
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > Maintainers might decide to add a special make target to prepare the
> > source tree for buildi
cture-independent
data" (since the other mentioned use case, reducing build dependencies,
is primarily interesting for essential packages). The "proper
dependency" part in the quote below could be addressed too.
* Russ Allbery [2012-02-17 00:48 -0800]:
> Carsten Hey writes:
>
* Axel Beckert [2011-08-16 23:33 +0200]:
> Besides the location of installed and generated files, their behaviour
> should also comply to the FHS, i.e., programs like apt must not fail
> if /var/cache/* is removed. On the other hand, local debian packages
> for propritary software generated by scri
* Carsten Hey [2011-06-27 22:36 +0200]:
> Package: developers-reference
> Severity: wishlist
>
> …
> the policy, for example, searching the archive for the binary name with
^^
This was a typo, 'developers-reference' is more appropriate for this.
--
To UNS
Package: developers-reference
Severity: wishlist
Recently a bug (#631830) was found that was caused by relocating
a binary from /usr/sbin to /sbin without adapting an other package that
uses an hardcoded path to this binary (in /etc/sudoers.d/).
As far as I know, a compatibility symlink would not
* Carsten Hey [2011-05-11 01:06 +0200]:
> * Russ Allbery [2011-05-10 15:32 -0700]:
> > Carsten Hey writes:
> >
> > > Besides "/usr -> /", are symlinks to directories still supported as
> > > top-level directories and are there still people using s
* Russ Allbery [2011-05-10 15:32 -0700]:
> Carsten Hey writes:
>
> > Besides "/usr -> /", are symlinks to directories still supported as
> > top-level directories and are there still people using such a setup?
> > If nobody uses this anymore, the policy
* Russ Allbery [2011-05-10 09:41 -0700]:
> Roger Leigh writes:
>
> > Section 10.5 states:
>
> > In general, symbolic links within a top-level directory should be
> > relative, and symbolic links pointing from one top-level directory
> > into another should be absolute. (A top-level
* Bill Allombert [2011-04-04 12:03 +0200]:
> Unfortunately, we cannot force upstream to use a version that start by a
> digit,
> We would need to document a mangling process for upstream version that start
> by a letter.
Quoting policy:
| epoch
|
| This is a single (generally small) unsigned inte
* Russ Allbery [2010-08-10 16:47 -0700]:
> Debian supports /usr as a separate file system from /, /usr as a remote
> file system, and /, /usr, and /etc mounted read-only ...
>
> Since these requirements keep catching people by surprise, I think we
> should write them down explicitly.
Actually the
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 09:44:41PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> You have a case here where the user has managed to run a complete
> system for a non-negligible period of time without ever installing an
> MTA (long enough to either configure oldstable in their sources.list,
> or for the version of
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 08:25:38PM +0100, Carsten Hey wrote:
> ... if apt would try to solve a dependency on the virtual package
> default-mta provided by exim4 and exim5 it would ... choose to install
> exim4 in the described case ...
In case of a virtual default-mta package, the exist
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 04:55:23PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> We could have a exim4 upload implementing in sid this rather quickly
> after receiving a go.
In general I much prefer a virtual package over a real one but I think
we should wait a bit until the following issues are clarified:
On
22 matches
Mail list logo
