On 15.05.2016 23:10, Iustin Pop wrote:
On 2016-05-15 21:45:55, Bálint Réczey wrote:
Hi Niels,
2016-05-15 20:49 GMT+02:00 Niels Thykier :
Bálint Réczey:
Hi,
[...]
Hi,
I think making PIE and bindnow default in dpkg (at least for amd64) would be
perfect release goals for Stretch.
I supp
On 03.05.2016 22:50, Josh Triplett wrote:
Debian Policy requires the use of -fPIC for shared libraries, but
documents potential exceptions for libraries with position-dependent
assembly, and for libraries that would incur a significant performance
hit. We can't do anything automated about the fo
This issue is now again silent for eight months. Is there anything missing, or
any other reason why the issue doesn't see any progress? So maybe I am
expecting something which I shouldn't expect, however the silence seems to be a
bit odd.
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-r
let me follow-up on this before jessie opens, and hopefully we can come to an
agreement how to get this done for jessie. Since 2011, some tools are now
looking at build logs (or should), and verbose build logs are required to make
more use of these tools:
- the build log checker: https://buildd.d
On 05/29/2011 08:11 PM, Bill Allombert wrote:
To start with, do you know how to desactivate that feature in cmake and automake
(and the linux kernel)?
- cmake: VERBOSE=1 (?)
- automake: V=1
- linux kernel: V=1
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subje
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.2.0
Severity: normal
[https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2011/03/msg00016.html]
It was suggested to move this to debian-policy.
It's always interesting to look at build logs, or to receive bug reports of the
form
CC
or
CCLD
without knowing
Raphael Hertzog schrieb:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Loïc Minier wrote:
>> If you implement conditional behavior in your rules, typically based on
>> lsb_release -is output:
>> if vendor is Ubuntu:
>> foo
>> elif vendor is Debian:
>> bar
>> you face a problem when you meet:
>> else:
>>
>>
Manoj Srivastava schrieb:
> On Mon, Mar 16 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Bill Allombert wrote:
>>> There is no documented semantic for CFLAGS et. al. in Debian policy. While
>>> some Makefile handle it in a certain way, this is not mandatory in
>>> any way. For example so
Russ Allbery writes:
> Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Version: 3.7.3.0
> >
> > 12.5 currently reads: "/usr/share/doc/package may be a symbolic link to
> > another directory in /usr/share/doc only if the
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.3.0
12.5 currently reads: "/usr/share/doc/package may be a symbolic link
to another directory in /usr/share/doc only if the two packages both
come from the same source and the first package Depends on the
second. These rules are important because copyrights must
Loïc Minier writes:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2007, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > do it without changing DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS:
>
> What's the gain? I only see the duplication of the $(subst ) foo, and
> the risk to forget that DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS might be comma-separated
> later
Loïc Minier writes:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2007, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Updated the Makefile example to work with whitespace and comma
> > separated values, without using the shell:
> > ifneq (,$(filter parallel=%,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)))
>
> I think this doesn'
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> On 27/07/07 at 23:35 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 04:56:14PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > - What to do if that option is not present? Should a package be
> > >allowed to build in parallel anyw
The proposed policy suggests "that the package should be built using
up to n parallel processes". Please clarify:
- The package should not build using more than processes. If
parallel=1 is used, the build should be sequential. This would
give buildd maintainers some way to control the buil
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.6.1.0
Severity: wishlist
triggered by #209693, the question is, if the long description should
be understandable on its own, or together with the short description.
Description: Documentation for an array processing package for Python
This package contai
Neil Roeth writes:
> Nice summary.
> > * Drop i386 support mostly. 'i386' architecture becomes 'i486'.
> > Start a 'Debian-real-i386' subproject, with a 'real-i386' architecture,
> > but don't require that any packages build on it in order to go into
> > testing or to release Debian; it would be
ok on the GFDL, not agreeing on the man page for the GPL, which should
be included in the base files.
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> Hi,
>
> My stance has been that in order to be classified as common,
> a license ought to be actually common -- say, a rule of thumb: be at
> least used in 5%
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
The base-files maintainer asked to discuss this first on
debian-policy. Is it possible that the GFDL is added to the base-files
package?
For the GPL, GFDL (and fsf-funding) do exist man pages. Could these be
added in the same package (i.e. base-files)? In
Ok, now that we separate woody and unstable, it is time to think about
this. IMO, this is not a gcc only thing. So propably it should be
changed in dpkg/policy first. debian--linux-gnu and
-linux-gnu come to mind as an alternative.
Ben Collins writes:
> Just a heads up on what is about to happen.
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
> 5.1. Architecture specification strings
> ---
> If a program needs to specify an _architecture specification string_
> in some place, the following format has to be used:
>
> -
>
>
Some questions and remarks to the ...
> 5.1. Architecture specification strings
> ---
> If a program needs to specify an _architecture specification string_
> in some place, the following format has to be used:
>
> -
>
>
AFAIK we tell developers to use cc, not gcc to compile programs. But
in 4.1 the policy insists on using gcc. So it's not easy to compile
all packages automatically with another compiler (like egcc).
Package: packaging-manual
Version: 2.4.1.2
are the examples for diversions are wrong, or do I miss something?
dpkg-divert has to be called for an upgrade as well and for the purge
of a package as well.
if [ install = "$1" ]; then
dpkg-divert --package smailwrapper --add --
Marcelo E. Magallon writes:
> I'm struggling with WindowMaker 0.19.0 and I just noticed a "minor"
> (yeah, right!) change in the way it parses configuration files at the source
> code level. It will search for resources like this:
>
> resourcePath/ext
> arv[0]/ext
> $GNUSTE
24 matches
Mail list logo
