Hi,
Quoting Bill Allombert (2023-09-10 18:29:36)
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 09:00:22AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> > > Quoting Hideki Yamane (2023-09-10 11:00:07)
> > >> Hmm, how about providing license-common package and that depends on
> > >> "license-common-list"
Hi,
Quoting Helmut Grohne (2022-10-05 20:08:19)
> I think this text is already quite good. I am yet wondering about the scope
> of support that we mention here.
>
> 1. You write that we want essential + build-essential. In practice, we
>also want things such as apt or systemd. I am wondering
Hi Russ,
thank you for your explanations, things are quite a bit clearer now.
Quoting Russ Allbery (2022-09-20 05:47:45)
> The point of putting this in Policy is to provide guidance to the
> packagers, not to the bootstrappers. Presumably you already have other
> documentation that you maintain
Source: debian-policy
Version: 4.6.1.1
Severity: wishlist
User: debian-d...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: dpkg-root-support
X-Debbugs-Cc: jo...@debian.org, debian-cr...@lists.debian.org
Hi,
in [1] Russ asked us to submit a policy bug about DPKG_ROOT so here it
goes. :)
[1] https://lists.debian.org/
s, josch>From dc186d400e47c9eed7dc94a2be4daa59b3fa2665 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2021 22:50:49 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] fixup B-D alternatives footnote (closes: #999826)
---
policy/ch-relationships.rst | 19 ++-
1 file changed, 14 insertions
Hi,
Quoting Bill Allombert (2021-11-17 14:40:57)
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 01:31:33PM +0100, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues
> wrote:
> > Quoting Bill Allombert (2021-11-17 13:06:09)
> > > > 1. "they are not normally used by the Debian autobuilders" should
&
Quoting Bill Allombert (2021-11-17 13:06:09)
> > 1. "they are not normally used by the Debian autobuilders" should instead
> >be "they are never used by the Debian autobuilders" or it should state
> >when they are used and when they are not
>
> If the base system on top of which the build-
Source: debian-policy
Version: 4.6.0.1
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: jo...@debian.org
Hi,
currently, footnote [1] of §7 states:
> While Build-Depends, Build-Depends-Indep and Build-Depends-Arch permit
> the use of alternative dependencies, these are not normally used by the
> Debian autobuilder
Quoting Sean Whitton (2021-08-18 22:21:15)
> On Wed 18 Aug 2021 at 11:10AM +02, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> >> 9.1.1
> >> No package is allowed to install files in ``/usr/lib64/``. Previously,
> >> this prohibition only applied to packages for 64-bit architectures.
> >
> > This path is used
Hi,
for everybody else who is reading this bug and was not reading debian-devel at
the same time, here is the thread that Tim started there for more context:
https://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.20.2102211635290.6...@einstein.home.woodall.me.uk
Quoting Tim Woodall (2021-02-22 18:28:56)
> On Mon
Hi Santiago,
Quoting Santiago Vila (2019-03-13 13:50:11)
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 01:15:02PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > I'm not advocating for doing "hacks here and there so that bootstrapping
> > tools
> > work properly" as you put it but that we
Hi Santiago,
Quoting Santiago Vila (2019-03-12 23:43:02)
> > > Do any of them still don't know that base-passwd should be configured
> > > first because otherwise any other package using root (be it base-files or
> > > any other) will fail? I think this was already settled in the last
> > > discus
Hi Javier,
Quoting Javier Serrano Polo (2018-01-31 00:18:01)
> Where should I report issues about the spec in the meantime?
build profiles came from the people who try to bootstrap Debian automatically.
We don't have a specific list for that task but an IRC channel at
#debian-bootstrap on OFTC.
Hi,
Quoting Sean Whitton (2017-08-13 03:23:14)
> +Reproducibility
> +---
> +
> +Packages should build reproducibly, which for the purposes of this
> +document [#]_ means that given
> +
> +- a version of a source package unpacked at a given path;
> +- a set of versions of installed buil
Hi,
Quoting Russ Allbery (2017-08-12 09:57:44)
> I think we need to add all environment variables starting with DEB_* to
> the prerequisites. If you set DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nostrip or
> DEB_BUILD_MAINT_OPTIONS=hardening=all, you'll definitely get a different
> package, for instance.
>
> I feel lik
Quoting Ben Hutchings (2017-07-17 02:17:12)
> However, I can see it has changed since I last looked and now says that
> "stage1" has been deprecated. I don't understand why this is or how we're
> supposed to give this hint to bootstrapping tools now.
When package maintainers implement build profi
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.8.0
Severity: wishlist
According to https://packages.debian.org/unstable/ there exists the
section "javascript" filled with 1050 packages. But the "javascript"
section is missing from the list of valid section names in policy §2.4.
Please add it.
Hi Jonathan,
Quoting Jonathan Nieder (2017-06-22 01:01:10)
> > please document the new Build-Depends syntax and fields for build
> > profiles. The current write-up of the new syntax and fields for build
> > profiles lives at https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec
> >
> > Please note, that the ne
Hi Stuart,
Quoting Stuart Prescott (2016-11-27 13:38:56)
> I assume we're not worried that if the local admin installs ccache, then the
> build will store files outside the build directory violating the prohibition
> that a 'required target must not attempt to write outside of the source
> package
Hi Adam,
thanks for having a look and your comments!
Quoting Adam D. Barratt (2016-11-26 09:40:17)
> On Sat, 2016-11-26 at 03:34 +0000, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > + None of the required targets must attempt to write outside of the
>
> You either mean "The requi
Hi,
Quoting Johannes Schauer (2016-09-18 08:11:10)
> - it is already supported by much software in the archive, most importantly
> it is supported by package builders and installability testers
with the upload of version 1.4, Build-Depends-Arch and Build-Conflicts-Arch are
now also sup
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Hi,
source packages are forced to not write into $HOME by sbuild and
pbuilder, so any package attempting to do so currently FTBFS. It would
be nice to have this requirement be documented in policy. I propose the
following patch:
diff --git a
cb6e40162f99ce7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Johannes Schauer
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2016 09:09:12 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Document Build-Depends-Arch and Build-Conflicts-Arch (closes:
#823910)
---
policy.sgml | 68 +
1 file changed, 32
Hi,
Quoting Javier Serrano Polo (2016-07-13 01:04:43)
> Sorry, I missed your message.
>
> > I'm removing #757760 from the recipients because that bug should
> > contain a discussion about the implementation of the current build
> > profile spec and should not be a discussion platform for further
Hi Javier,
Quoting Javier Serrano Polo (2016-07-09 21:40:35)
> Where is this feature discussed?
we talk about it on debian-dpkg@, debian-cross@ and occasionally I guess on
deity@. Some discussion about build profiles also happens in IRC on
#debian-bootstrap, #debian-dpkg and sometimes #debian-apt
Package: developers-reference
Version: 3.4.14
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
in the d-devel thread starting here [1] I learned that
123-submitter@b.d.o is only sent to the bts and the submitter but *not*
to the maintainer. This came as a surprise to me after reading section
5.8.2. of devref which current
Package: developers-reference
Version: 3.4.12
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
as part of my NM process I was asked how to upload to
stable/stable-proposed-updates. I noticed that the dev ref does not say
explicitly how to do such uploads and whether or not there is a
difference between functionality bug f
Package: developers-reference
Version: 3.4.12
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
I think the developers reference could use a unified section of all
conventions around Debian versions.
I will split this email into three subsections which I think make sense
for the new section I propose.
I was also told in
Package: developers-reference
Version: 3.4.12
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Hi,
section 6.5.2.6. is titled "be gender neutral" and also explicitly
advises to "use gender-neutral constructions in your writing" but in the
same line says "The world is made of men and women". This is not being
gender
Hi,
I'm reviving this old bug as this came recently up again in the context of
ReproducibleBuilds.
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 12:06:42 +0100 Helmut Grohne wrote:
> The actual problem
> ~~
> Problems with Installed-Size are not exactly new as discussion in
> http://bugs.debian.org/534408
Hi,
Quoting Russ Allbery (2014-08-27 17:21:05)
> This is back to the problem of ambiguity with changelog, copyright, etc. Hm.
> How about:
>
> This tag says to skip any build steps that only generate package
> documentation. Required files such as copyright and changelog files must
>
Hi,
Quoting Russ Allbery (2014-08-26 23:51:08)
> > I think that it is a good idea. Here is a draft patch.
>
> > When writing this patch, I became unsure if “*-doc” packages are the best
> > description for the binary packages that will not be built.
probably in many cases but while it would not
Hi,
Quoting Jonathan Nieder (2014-08-25 20:35:34)
> > When bootstrapping, a common approach is to do a build without
> > documentation to be able to drop the build dependencies on documentation
> > building tools. This is why the build profile name "nodoc" exists which, if
> > enabled, allows buil
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
please consider adding "nodoc" as a possible DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS value to
§ 4.9.1 [1].
The value "nodoc" or "nodocs" is currently used in 72 source packages
according to [2]. Documenting "nodoc" in policy would avoid the
confusion between the two. The
Hi,
Quoting Matthias Urlichs (2014-08-07 07:54:26)
> Also, "build profiles" are not explained anywhere in Policy (unless that's
> been added after 3.9.5), so how would I discover which values are allowed /
> make sense?
right. For the purpose of documenting the Package-List its usage for build
pr
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
please document the new Build-Depends syntax and fields for build
profiles. The current write-up of the new syntax and fields for build
profiles lives at https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec
Please note, that the new Build-Depends syntax element
Hi,
Quoting Charles Plessy (2014-08-06 07:41:40)
> what do you think about the patch I sent to the Policy, for describing the
> syntax of the current optional fields of the Packages-List field ? Do you
> think that modifications are needed ? Would you second it ?
>
> https://bugs.debian.org
37 matches
Mail list logo
