On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 22:14:10 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Hello. This is an attempt to put the basis for fixing this bug:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=837060
>
> As an example, packages tzdata, mount or e2fsprogs are not build-essential
> and afaik have not been for
On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 09:44:25PM +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> Policy section 11.8.5, point 1 says
>
> > If one or more of the fonts so packaged are necessary for proper
> > operation of the package with which they are associated the font
> > package may be Recommended; if the fonts merely provid
On 2/16/19 7:08 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Friday, February 15, 2019 08:59:41 PM Sean Whitton wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Use of the Build-Conflicts field is currently mostly optional, but Ian
>> Jackson and I have been working on text for Debian Policy that would
>> require its use in certain case
On 11/14/18 9:07 AM, Angus Lees wrote:
> Suggestions welcome - I imagine this is not a unique situation. I think
> our options are:
> - no rust-gdb manpage at all
> - a .so stub or symlink to gdb.1 (current situation)
> - a manually-created stub manpage that just refers the reader to
> gdb-doc/gdb
On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 12:41:48 +0200, Gioele Barabucci wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
>
> Hello,
>
> the policy lacks guidelines on how to treat user-provided configuration
> files during configuration purging in packages for programs that follow the
> "stateless" paradigm (default in `/usr`,
On 08/04/2018 07:14 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Sean Whitton writes ("Beginnings of a patch to add netbase to
> build-essential"):
>> Ian also thinks that package builds should be able to access the
>> information normally contained in /etc/protocols and /etc/services by
>> means of the C standard li
On 07/23/2018 04:45 AM, Sean Whitton wrote:
> control: tag -1 +patch
>
> Hello,
>
> Seeking seconds:
>
> diff --git a/policy/ch-relationships.rst b/policy/ch-relationships.rst
> index 1eaa422..03f5918 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-relationships.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-relationships.rst
> @@ -228,6 +228
Control: tag -1 - patch
On 02/16/2017 07:44 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Package: developers-reference
> Version: 3.4.18
> Severity: normal
> Control: tags -1 patch
> Control: affects -1 devscripts
>
This bug doesn't seem to actually include a patch.
Cheers,
Julien
On 07/03/2018 11:56 AM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> How about the attached patch?
>
> Complete patch series (including non-normative) updated here:
> https://salsa.debian.org/smcv/policy/merge_requests/1/diffs
> Seconded.
Cheers,
Julien
On 06/15/2018 02:06 PM, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Patch:
>
>> diff --git a/policy/ch-files.rst b/policy/ch-files.rst
>> index 90ae58a..f31a3b4 100644
>> --- a/policy/ch-files.rst
>> +++ b/policy/ch-files.rst
>> @@ -203,9 +203,9 @@ may instead be easier to check the exit status of
>> commands directly
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 15:33:53 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> >The relations allowed are ‘<<’, ‘<=’, ‘=’, ‘>=’ and ‘>>’ for strictly
> >earlier, earlier or equal, exactly equal, later or equal and strictly
> >later, respectively. The deprecated forms ‘<’ and ‘>’ were confusingly
> >used to mean earl
On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 23:23:22 +, Anthony Fok wrote:
> This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script.
>
> foka pushed a commit to branch master
> in repository developers-reference.
>
> commit ab0b6f45b3eb561da0a25bb4a2f444ce0b410759
> Author: Anthony Fok
> Date: Thu
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:06:50 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I suggest to change
>
> | If there are development files associated with a shared
> | library, the source package needs to generate a binary
> | development package named librarynamesoversion-dev, or if you
> | prefer only
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 22:30:10 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:57:27PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 21:54:29 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:10:31PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 21:54:29 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:10:31PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > for some time I've been uploading packages with
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
for some time I've been uploading packages with Maintainer set to a
mailing list and no Uploaders field. In cases where some package kind
of fit within a team, but noone cares specifically about that individual
package, I feel it's better than settin
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 22:17:33 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> I think Debian Policy should consider relaxing the "should" in §11.11
> (btw, is that normative even when written in lowercase?).
>
Debian Policy doesn't use RFC's uppercase SHOULD/MUST/MAY anywhere...
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 20:45:43 +0200, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> But policy says that there "should" be such a copyright file. Violating such
> a clause is at least an important bug.
It's *at most* an important bug:
These classifications are roughly equivalent to the bug severities
_
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 18:09:16 +0200, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015, Julien Cristau wrote:
> >FWIW I disagree with this change, I don't think making a new requirement
> >for source packages is the way to solve NEW review workflow.
>
> Oh,
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:44:10 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Dear Santiago and everybody,
>
> how about the following ? (in section 4.5)
>
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -1822,12 +1822,16 @@ zope.
>
> Copyright: debian/copyright
>
> Every {+sou
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 20:47:08 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, Aug 08, 2015 at 08:12:28AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
> >
> > I think that the mention of quinn-diff can be removed from the Developer's
> > Reference. This can be done in two ways.
> >
> > - Remove §A.7.1 on quinn-di
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 13:16:24 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 11:34:20 +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> > > Lintian now detect script creating user pointing to /home.
>
> > After a chat under #debian-q
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 13:48:14 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Policy §5.6.12 reads: “The may contain only alphanumerics
> and the characters ‘.’ ‘+’ ‘-’ ‘:’ ‘~’ (full stop, plus, hyphen, colon,
> tilde) and should start with a digit. […] if there is
On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 23:38:24 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 12:28:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Bill Allombert writes:
> >
> > > + 4294967294:
> > > +
> > > +
> > > + (uid_t)(-2) == (gid_t)(-2) must
> > > + not be used,
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 23:53:46 +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> Even example.org is not safe because registered could be possible to
> add a footnote
>
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to say above.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 18:39:20 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> So, I propse adding to the list of exceptions in policy section 9.1.1:
>
>The FHS requirement that architecture-independent application-specific
>static files be located in /usr/share is relaxed to a suggestion.
>
>In particu
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:45:48 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 2708242..90ae9fe 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -7021,15 +7021,14 @@ Built-Using: grub2 (= 1.99-9), loadlin (= 1.6e-1)
> stable release of Debian supp
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 08:00:55 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> does the current patch (attached) address your concerns ? If yes, would
> you second it ?
>
Sorry, I don't feel confident to second anything trigger-related.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 09:27:19 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > About the problem of triggers being called with Depends not satisfied, can
> > you
> > give more explanations or suggest some text for the warning ? Would it be
> > enough to
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 11:26:01 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:09:17AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> > On Sun, 12 May 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > >
> > > I also added "through the interst or activate
> > > directives"
> > > after "When a configured package ac
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 22:18:09 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> Package: developers-reference
> Tags: patch
>
> Hi,
>
> Attached patch updates the developer's reference to advise people to use
> "wheezy-security" and the likes for security updates, not
> "stable-security".
>
>
Applied, thanks
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 20:53:28 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There's been quite some confusion lately over the right version scheme for
> uploads to stable(-security), and it doesn't help that the devref's advice
> is not currently correct.
>
> Can you please apply attached patch swi
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 18:01:48 -0400, David Prévot wrote:
> As discussed on #d-release, the version scheme advice could be improved,
> so should the distribution declared in changelog, for the testing and
> {old,}stable upload (including the -security ones), in order to have
> only one scheme to
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 10:51:45 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> tag 701081 patch
> thanks
>
> Dear all,
>
> I think that it emerges from the discussion that there are good uses of
> Unicode, and that somebody would need to step up and ensure that a dozen of
> packages are corrected if we were to
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 14:25:12 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Okay, once more for the win. Here is the current version of the patch,
> incorporating substantial improvements from Jonathan Nieder and hopefully
> incorporating all the feedback in subsequent discussion.
>
> I'm looking for seconds
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 15:31:52 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Could someone who has the time to put together a script for this check to
> see whether this is actually true? (Namely, that the only thing in
> required are essential packages and their dependencies.)
>
As far as I can tell the follo
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 21:23:47 +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> reopen 662649
> reassign 662649 debian-policy
> thanks
>
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 08:03:55PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 5 Mar 2012, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> >
> > > Package: base-files
> > > Version: 6.7
> > > Severity:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 18:01:52 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I would like to know people's feeling about this.
>
Seeing how you're about the only one in favour of removing the policy
should, I'm not sure why you think raising it to tech-ctte will change
that.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCR
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 23:10:46 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: wishlist
>
> How should packages behave if there is no explicit "parallel=N" in
> DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS? I saw two different approaches:
>
> 1) Behave (roughly) like if parallel=1 was set.
>
> 2) Be cleve
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 17:26:04 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> >These dependencies must be added to the binary
> > package when it is built, since they may change
>
> This means packages must not hard-code library dependencies. It
> also seems like good policy, but I
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 18:51:10 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Lintian suggests the following command to determine correct name for a shared
> library package:
>
> objdump -p /path/to/libfoo-bar.so.1.2.3 | sed -n
> -e's/^[[:space:]]*SONAME[[:space:]]
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 08:32:55 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index c1ff4b4..0f1dbf9 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -4628,7 +4628,7 @@ Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.1), exim | mail-transport-agent
> Relationships may be restricted to a
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 13:49:53 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Currently, section 9.1.1 relaxes the FHS requirement that /lib64 and
> /usr/lib64 be used, but it doesn't prohibit installing files in that
> location. However, due to the way Debian handles this (with symlinks),
> bad things happen in
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:00:14 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Would "lockuser" need to be in the adduser package? Given that
> adduser is only priority:important, it's not guaranteed to be present
> when postrm is run, so the operation could fail. Maybe passwd is a
> better place for it, given th
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 20:07:57 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Julien Cristau writes:
> > On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 05:03:47 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
>
> >> Well, while I generally agree dpkg does not need to be as strict as
> >> policy when it might make sense
Full quoting because you didn't cc the policy list when reassigning...
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 05:03:47 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> reassign 620566 debian-policy
> severity 620566 normal
> tags 620566 patch
> retitle 620566 Sync upstream version format with what dpkg accepts now
> thanks
>
> O
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 21:30:49 +0100, Robert Luberda wrote:
> I implemented a work-around in ispell 3.3.02-3, so the bug no longer
> affects ispell. But the issue still exists, and I think it's the Policy
> to blame of it in the first place. Build-*Indep fields are pretty much
> useless if build
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 16:25:46 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> The udeb prefix is added if Package-Type: udeb is set.
>
Does XC-Package-Type also work? debhelper uses
/^(?:X[BC]*-)?Package-Type:\s*(.*)/ to populate the package type.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 22:17:32 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> If I had to make a proposal, I'd suggest maxima of
>
> _XOPEN_PATH_MAX / 2 (= 512) for paths, to leave room for chroots
> _XOPEN_NAME_MAX - 16 (= 239) for filenames, to leave room for
> .dpkg-divert.tmp. Forget ReiserFS 3. :)
>
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 22:40:52 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> From discussion on IRC earlier this evening, it looks like the most
> pragmatic approach will be to get the apt and aptitude sbuild
> resolvers to strip the alternatives (after arch reduction), which
> will make them behave pretty much e
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 15:14:04 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> That said helper tools like "dh" should be free to use dpkg-buildflags
> to set environment variables that ./configure and other similar calls
> can inspect and use.
>
The usual way to pass CFLAGS to configure is as a command line a
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 14:25:40 +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.9.1.0
> Severity: minor
>
> Hey
>
> The example in 4.9.1 suggests to set CFLAGS in a way that completely
> overrides values from dpkg-buildpackage/dpkg-buildflags[1]:
>
> CFLAGS = -Wall -g
>
> Th
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 12:57:05 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 11:44:56 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> > This will only be done with the approval of the release team, who
> > I've copied in.
> >
> I don't think that's not g
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 11:44:56 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> This will only be done with the approval of the release team, who
> I've copied in.
>
I don't think that's not going to happen. Try again for wheezy, and
maybe you can manage not to wait until the last minute of the freeze.
Cheers,
Ju
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 14:18:06 +0100, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> Futhermore lintian warns when using +deb60u1, and it seems to confuse the
> bts a bit. See for example the version graph #603456, placing testings
> nagiosgrapher/1.7.1-2+deb60u1 above unstables nagiosgrapher/1.7.1-2.1, I'
experimental is to use your personal web
> space on people.debian.org.
>
> -
> -When uploading to unstable a package which had bugs fixed
> -in experimental, please consider using the option
> --v to dpkg-buildpackage to finally get
> -them closed.
> -
>
>
>
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 00:18:49 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> From: Charles Plessy
> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:14:42 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] Clarification of the format of control files, Closes:
> #501930, #593909.
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> Content-Transf
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:31:59 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
> > Piotr Kaczuba writes:
>
> >> Before 1.2.65 logcheck depended on mailx, which was and still is
> >> provided by both mailutils and bsd-mailx. Now that logcheck depends
> >> explicitly on bsd-mailx, you can't h
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 17:43:09 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> So there are three or four things above that we could leave off. Would
> people like me to try to trim the checklist down by removing things like
> shlibs.local that probably no one is using?
>
Actually there are packages using shlibs
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:49:31 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index c0415c1..9aca16c 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -8014,6 +8014,12 @@ endscript
>
>
>
> +
> + Control information files should be owned by
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 18:27:33 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 13/07/10 04:11, Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
> > +
> > + Run-time shared libraries
> > +
> > +
> > + The run-time shared library must be placed in a package
> > + whose name changes whenever the SONAME of th
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 09:58:39 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
> > I therefore think we should rewrite this whole section to remove most of
> > the details and instead just say not to ever use date-based formats like
> > 96May01 and instead use something based off of MM
Sorry for coming back to this, I think I missed this new requirement
initially (or I skipped this thread, I don't remember...).
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 23:28:11 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Charles Plessy writes:
> > Le Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:22:37PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> >> It's a
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 14:11:17 -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> A possible way to implement this state-based policy without relying on the
> underlying boot system would be to require packages and users to never call
> init script directly and to make service(8) the interface to init scripts f
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 19:31:43 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> However, I think this whole bit really doesn't belong in Policy. For
> packages that are snapshot-based with no regular version number but one
> that might show up later, I'd use 0~MMDD. For ones that are
> pre-releases, I'd use ~
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:19:42 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 9a72be5..2a634b8 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -5654,7 +5654,11 @@ objdump -p /usr/lib/libz.so.1.1.3 | grep SONAME
>
>
> The version part i
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:15:38 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 1e641e6..9a72be5 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -5470,8 +5470,13 @@ Replaces: mail-transport-agent
> debian/shlibs.local
>
>
> -
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:06:04 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 9fe7158..2635fa8 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -7361,40 +7361,58 @@ strip --strip-unneeded your-lib
>
>
>
> - An ever increasing number of packag
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:21:13 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 9fe7158..587a6b2 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -1214,9 +1214,11 @@
>
>
>
> - You should not use dpkg-divert on a file
> - belonging to anot
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:57:45 +, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> sdm (0.4.1-2) unstable; urgency=low
> .
[...]
>* No longer include dash as a dependency; it is included in essential.
>* Add lintian overrides for missing-dep-for-interpreter dash, as dash
> is now essential.
My und
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 13:29:42 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Objections or seconds?
>
With the typo fixed, seconded.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 13:29:42 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 720150d..23a8c90 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -2488,8 +2488,6 @@ Package: libc6
> The syntax and semantics of the fields are described below.
>
>
> -
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 13:01:57 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 720150d..1e134bb 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -5163,11 +5163,20 @@ Replaces: mail-transport-agent
> Development files
>
>
> - The development file
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 12:24:07 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> - Build-Depends-Indep,
> - Build-Conflicts-Indep
> + build, build-indep, binary,
> + and binary-indep
>
> -The Build-Depends-Indep and
> - Build-Conflicts-Indep
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 09:58:28 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Objections or seconds?
>
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 87b9795..99ab0ff 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -2398,6 +2398,11 @@ Package: libc6
>
>
>
> + Each paragraph may contai
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 09:34:50 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.8.4.0
> Severity: wishlist
>
> AFAIK, the current version of dpkg in stable supports symbols files, so I
> think it is time we loosen the requirement for shlibs files when symbols
> files are present.
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 21:33:29 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Packages must include a copyright or lack-of-copyright statement
> in debian/copyright. Claims that the policy never meant
> copyright notices were supposed to be included in the first place
> only muddle the discussion.
>
> This s
Coming back to an old patch...
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 23:42:21 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 0bf1001..45d6643 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -2726,7 +2726,12 @@ Package: libc6
> values:
>
>
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 03:06:17 -0500, Borden Rhodes wrote:
> Good morning,
>
> I have a question regarding timestamps in Debian package logs. One of my
> biggest frustrations when troubleshooting problems with Xorg, for example, is
> that the .xsession-errors and Xorg.log entries are not tim
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 22:25:56 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.8.3.0
> Tags: patch
> User: debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: informative
>
> Clarify what is meant by "verbatim copy of its copyright and distribution
> license" to be explicit about w
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 18:55:45 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Where was announced the requirement from the FTP team ?
>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2009/10/msg4.html
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "u
ce.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/misc>.
> The second depends on the first.
>
fwiw
Reviewed-by: Julien Cristau
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 20:50:30 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 0bf8253..347c0bf 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -5584,6 +5584,40 @@ libbar 1 bar1 (>= 1.0-1)
>
>
>
> +
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 20:50:30 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> +
> + Applications may also use a single subdirectory under
> + /usr/lib/triplet.
> +
Is /lib/ intentionally left out here? I don't know how likely
that is, but if pe
Please don't remove the debian-x cc…
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 15:49:52 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 02:29:09PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > it's been pointed out to me that we violate FHS ever since [1] is
> > incl
Hi,
it's been pointed out to me that we violate FHS ever since [1] is
included in Debian.
The FHS says "All X Window System manual pages must have an x appended
to the filename."
Now there are some options.
1) add an exception in policy to allow the removal of this x suffix
2) revert this change
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 14:06:17 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 11:39:40AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 23:38:17 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> > > That's unfortunate. Imagine the following scenario:
> > >
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 23:38:17 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> That's unfortunate. Imagine the following scenario:
> 1. Package P is released in sarge, with version 1.0-1.
> 2. Package P is installed on a system S, running sarge.
> 3. etch is released with P 1.0-1.
> 4. A security bug is found in
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 13:11:00 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 0bf8253..100917d 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -5584,6 +5584,35 @@ libbar 1 bar1 (>= 1.0-1)
>
>
>
> +
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 18:37:05 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > 2) These packages may just symlink
> > /usr/share/doc/${package name}-${debug suffix} to
> > /usr/share/doc/${package name}
> > (and of course, depend on ${package name}
>
> 5) There m
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 19:43:29 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think at this point, now that debconf is mandatory for all but essential
> packages, removing the guarantee of a controlling terminal is
> uncontroversial. This bug has been open for a while and I'd like to put
> it to bed. Here's p
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 16:02:50 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes:
> > Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> Sorry about the delay in dealing with this. I've now committed:
> >>
> >>
> >> Installed-Size
> >>
> >>
> >>This field appears in the control file
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 13:37:39 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The following wording has received one second and needs an additional
> second to be committed to the next revision of Policy. Is everyone happy
> with it?
>
> > --- a/policy.sgml
> > +++ b/policy.sgml
> > @@ -8885,6 +8885,15 @@ name
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 13:33:57 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Raphaël Hertzog writes:
>
> > In response to http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=494714 I
> > would like that the policy be updated to allow the Binary field in .dsc
> > and .changes to span over multiple lines.
>
> Sorr
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 09:57:04 -0400, Jonathan Yu wrote:
> Oh. Interesting. I was (clearly) unaware of that. How recently was
> this? What was the reasoning behind it?
I think this is the part where you do your homework.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 13:29:48 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> I formally object to the part '(in other words, the size in kibibytes)'.
>
> (I believe this change is not informative and only serve the purpose of
> endorsing a standard which does not meet consensus in Debian.)
>
+1.
Cheers,
Jul
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 23:54:13 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Julien Cristau writes:
>
> > Ping Russ? :)
>
> Sorry about the long delay on the rewrite of the X installation
> directory section. Here's proposed rewording for the whole section.
> How does this
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 09:20:51 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> As far as branches are concerned, the default branch should point to
> the debian packaging branch and that's it.
And how do you do that, when the debian and upstream repos are the same?
That seems to be a fairly arbitrary limitatio
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 19:13:23 -0700, Martin Dorey wrote:
> debian-policy appears to define Installed-Size's units as thousands of bytes:
>
> > 5.6.20 Installed-Size
> > This field appears in the control files of binary packages, and in the
> > Packages files. It gives the total amount of disk
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 11:53:19 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Jun 2009, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> > It is not an alternative:
> > - It is ugly
> > - it is not on root partition
> >
> > The ugly part it is IMHO the most important part.
>
> Ugliness is relative. I have no problem wi
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
