Bug#761219: debian-policy: document versioned Provides

2019-06-07 Thread Dominic Hargreaves
On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 09:44:10AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 at 21:54:40 +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > > This is a fair comment. The wording was potentially misleading. How about > > the attached instead? > > This mostly looks good, just one t

Bug#761219: debian-policy: document versioned Provides

2019-06-06 Thread Dominic Hargreaves
On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 11:53:50AM +, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello Dominic, > > Thank you for coming back to this. > > On Tue 01 Jan 2019 at 06:41pm GMT, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > > > -If a relationship field has a version number attached, only real > > -pack

Bug#761219: debian-policy: document versioned Provides

2019-01-01 Thread Dominic Hargreaves
t the discussion about backporting is now moot given the time that has elapsed and that even jessie is barely a backporting target now. Cheers, Dominic. >From c55183e7fbc08018b71a413c2a533d470642f4d0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dominic Hargreaves Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2019 18:36:54 + Sub

Bug#906901: debian-policy: Perl script shebang requirement is disturbing and inconsistent with rest of policy

2018-08-25 Thread Dominic Hargreaves
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 08:44:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Dominic Hargreaves writes: > > > Clearly it should not be a must at this point given the deviation: > > though it still looks to me like a must ever since it was added to the > > perl policy, so if it is chan

Bug#906901: debian-policy: Perl script shebang requirement is disturbing and inconsistent with rest of policy

2018-08-22 Thread Dominic Hargreaves
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 08:42:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Russ Allbery writes: > > > Did Lintian have some special case that was allowing /usr/bin/env perl > > previously and then Lintian changed based on Policy? That would be > > unfortunate, since we thought we were changing to match Lin

Bug#683495: Mandating use of /usr/bin/perl in Policy

2017-10-14 Thread Dominic Hargreaves
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:49:59AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > control: tag -1 +patch > > Hello, > > I am seeking seconds for the following patch to close this bug, which I > think is uncontroversial at this point. > > > @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ All command scripts, including the package maintainer

Bug#587991: perl-policy: /etc/perl missing from Module Path

2012-01-05 Thread Dominic Hargreaves
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 09:07:38AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Dominic Hargreaves writes: > > > There are a couple of other things which use /etc/perl, from only a > > brief look at the perl debian/changelog (/etc/perl/CPAN and > > /etc/perl/CPANPLUS). Those file

Bug#587991: perl-policy: /etc/perl missing from Module Path

2012-01-04 Thread Dominic Hargreaves
we really should > be documenting this in the Perl Policy, since that implies it's a facility > that people should consider using. Without carrying out an exhaustive survey, the CPAN and CPANPLUS examples suggest to me that /etc/perl should stay, and given that they seems like

Bug#609162: [request-tracker-maintainers] debian-policy: package names with dots/periods ('.') and crontab files: packagers beware

2011-09-13 Thread Dominic Hargreaves
; >> package followed by a hyphen ('-') and a suitable suffix. > >> > >> The resulting file name must not include any '.' or '+' characters > >> as this will cause cron to ignore them. Underscores ('_') should

Bug#619275: Perl Policy change to document major version upgrade trigger

2011-06-06 Thread Dominic Hargreaves
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 10:28:28PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 09:13:06PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 07:50:20PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:35:31PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: >

Bug#619275: Perl Policy change to document major version upgrade trigger

2011-06-06 Thread Dominic Hargreaves
the case, sure. By the way, I've attached a revised patch which just currents the spelling. I also had a look at the bug report and it seems there has been some traffic I didn't see; please could I or the debian-perl mailing remain on CC lists? Thanks for your work reviving this propo

Bug#619275: Perl Policy change to document major version upgrade trigger

2011-05-29 Thread Dominic Hargreaves
emented) > but not necessarily in policy, at least until it is more than a proof of > concept. The functionality was implemented in 5.12.3-2; it reached unstable at the start of May and was announced to d-d-a here: <http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/05/msg6.html>

Bug#619275: Perl Policy change to document major version upgrade trigger

2011-03-25 Thread Dominic Hargreaves
ng bugs on other packages, so will wait for the above discussion to pan out a bit first. One of the reasons I worked on this was because I've been hit by exactly this issue with spamassassin in the past; I'd appreciate pointers for other software that would benefit from this change.

Bug#619275: Perl Policy change to document major version upgrade trigger

2011-03-25 Thread Dominic Hargreaves
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 08:31:51AM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 04:35:16PM +0000, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > > @@ -461,6 +461,26 @@ perl -MExtUtils::Embed -e ldopts > > package must depend upo

Bug#619275: Perl Policy change to document major version upgrade trigger

2011-03-22 Thread Dominic Hargreaves
ith success. The implementation is for all practical purposes identical to the proof of concept posted by Niko to the original bug. My proposed modification to the Perl policy is a new section entitled "Upgrades", attached as a patch against git. Thanks, Dominic. -- Dominic Hargreaves | http://w