Bug#1068022: Document the Testsuite-Triggers field

Hi again, On 2024-03-29 20:30, Christian Kastner wrote: > Policy 5.6.30 lists the Testsuite field, but it doesn't list the > Testsuite-Triggers field that seems to be part of Sources files and is > generated by dpkg-source >= 1.18.8. > > This field is quite useful, as give

Bug#1068022: Document the Testsuite-Triggers field

Hi Sean, On 2024-03-30 02:35, Sean Whitton wrote: >> I'd provide a patch based on the documentation in dsc(5), but I don't >> know what the current process is. Does anyone have a link to a doc on >> how to submit a change? > > There is a chapter of Policy regarding the Policy Changes Process. ir

Bug#1068022: Document the Testsuite-Triggers field

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.6.2.0 Severity: wishlist Policy 5.6.30 lists the Testsuite field, but it doesn't list the Testsuite-Triggers field that seems to be part of Sources files and is generated by dpkg-source >= 1.18.8. This field is quite useful, as given my package src:foo, I can fin

Re: nocheck (don't run) vs nodoc (don't build)

Hi Russ, thanks for the fast reply! On 2023-04-26 20:42, Russ Allbery wrote: > Christian Kastner writes: >> I thought this line of reasoning was sound, but then I remembered the >> 'nodoc' tag and now I am no longer sure. Maybe I'm taking the 'nocheck' &g

nocheck (don't run) vs nodoc (don't build)

Hi, Policy 4.9.1 states that (emphases mine): * "[nocheck] says not to *run* any build-time test suite" * "[nodoc] says to skip any *build* steps" My reading with regards to 'nocheck' was that where tests were available and needed to be built, then they should always be built, just not run.

Re: Bug#971023: Version field (5.6.12) and colons

Hi Sean, On 2020-09-29 02:22, Sean Whitton wrote: > Technically superfluous but I think helpful to the reader, so I suggest > we just keep it. To be honest, as a reader, I found that to be the opposite. The "If [epoch] is omitted" makes it sound as if there were an alternative handling if it's no

Bug#971023: Version field (5.6.12) and colons

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.5.0.3 Severity: minor Hi, with regards to colons in version numbers, 5.6.12 states on the "epoch" fragment: "If it is omitted then the upstream_version may not contain any colons." However, this seems superfluous, as it states on the "upstream_version" fragmen

Bug#685506: debian-policy: Please add field Files-Excluded to machine readable copyright files definition

On 2012-08-21 14:34:50 +0200 Andreas Tille wrote:> I would propose the following addition to > > http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ > > --- 8< - > Files-Excluded > -- > > Whitespace-sepa