l distinction between the date and the packaging
version, so that's not optimal either.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
d have to repeat that algorithm. Unnecessarily.
Today, any such substitution can be pretty dumb, e.g. a shell loop or a
couple of s/@VAR@/value/g regexps, and I'd like to be able to keep doing
that.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with
yet
> your post suggests it.
>
No, of course that was not intended. The intent was merely to state that
ed-as-an-interpreter-for-diff is *way* obsolete.
> It is unfortunate it is not possible for diff to default to -u (or even -c)
> without breaking backward compatility (including
eep the reference to what this is all about somewhere.
>
Sure. Nobody wants to drop ed from Debian. (I hope.)
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian
which disagrees on that move.
Quite frankly, any experienced Unix person who still uses "ed" for, well,
anything at all really, should ask themselves where the hell they've been
during the last 20 years or so.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-
r and
not be concerned that somebody's random UID matches some random customer's
root user. Or be forced to pre-allocate 2048 dummy users so that adduser
won't.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ENOSPC gracefully is a good idea, but IMHO mostly
orthogonal.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150108162542.ga22...@smurf.noris.de
/var/run/minidlna
You might want to use this opportunity to replace /var/run with /run.
> ExecStartPre=/bin/chown $USER /var/run/minidlna
You should use "%u"; see systemd.unit(5).
Also, one ExecStartPre stanza is sufficient:
> ExecStartPre=/usr/bin/install -o %u -g %
Hi,
Santiago Vila:
> As it has been pointed out by others, whenever we have a set of
> mutually conflicting packages performing the same task, the package
> having optional priority is the one that we recommend among them.
>
> It is a way to tell the user "in doubt, use this one".
>
… which also
Override file as "canonical source" and
reduce it to a role as a temporary fix for wrongly-prioritized binary
packages, with the understanding that any Override entry shall have an
accompanying bug on the package it overrides.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
es and "simple" dependencies to do their work, Policy needs to
reflect that.
In principle we could replace the whole priority thing with three
metapackages, but that's something to be explored _after_ releasing …
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
bootstrap. :-P
This change is git-pull-able: git://git.smurf.noris.de/policy.git#master
commit f534bae9ccb69b70e58e1f34b9aa143d35ac836e
Author: Matthias Urlichs
Date: Thu Nov 13 13:15:31 2014 +0100
Policy: Use dependencies instead of priority adherence
Raising the policy of de
Hi,
Simon McVittie:
> On 13/11/14 09:59, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > I'd like to suggest the following Policy change to fix the "depend
> > on packages with lower dependencies" non-problem.
> >
> > This does simplify current practice, but unfortuna
Package: debian-policy
Followup-For: Bug #758234
I'd like to suggest the following Policy change to fix the
"depend on packages with lower dependencies" non-problem.
This does simplify current practice, but unfortunately not Policy itself,
as adhering to policy shouldn't allow you to break deboot
es of computers aren't essential either,
but that didn't stop us yet. ;-)
IMHO it's maintainer/upstream choice whether to call on the "new" library's
features, even on systems where they are not (yet?) useful.
(Maintaining patches also is busy work if avoidable.)
--
gt;>
>> Please read if you need advice on which license to use for a
>> new project,
(Do we have such a page, or do we point to an external one?)
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscr
Hi,
Brian May:
> We need two virtual package names, one for Python2 and one for Python3.
>
So go for it. "httpd-wsgi3"?
> I raised this issue on debian-devel, but unfortunately got noreponse
Probably because this is so obviously correct as to not require one. :-P
--
s Important / Required and has a
simple dependency on B, then (absent any Pre-Depends) the priority of B is
not relevant any more and thus doesn't need to be overridden.
The rest should be dealt with by using the priority in the package,
not a centrally-maintained override file.
--
-
en you
already have a tool that adds them (and nothing else) to a set of packages
when you need it, as opposed to "when ftpadmin gets around to updating the
override file".
> Minor clarification: Essential is a flag, not a priority.
>
*Oops* Thanks.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
--
T
ackages without asking a question
which reminds me what the Shift key is for.¹²
… but let's release Jessie first.
① When a terminal window is set to mouse mode, you need to press Shift
if you want standard copy+paste behavior.
② Other than writing capital letters, of course.
--
-- Mat
At minimum, if it does not, then the real source needs a "if you change
this, you need to run 'make realclean'" comment on top.
This implies that the Makefile / debian/rules files, as shipped, contain
the code required to rebuild any intermediaries. I would file a bug if I
en
it's not. But I'd like it to be.
However, if a consensus should emerge that it's too much hassle to file
bugs against 100 packages (and then have at least half of their maintainers
show up in -devel for the first time in $FOREVER, and try to argue that
$OTHER_PACKAGE should be in E
Hi,
Russ Allbery:
> Could you say more about why you think conflicting packages having a
> separate priority from optional is useful? When would people use that
> priority information, and how?
>
Let's assume that I have a large multiuser Debian system. I don't want to
be bothered by people requ
9.5), so how would I discover which
values are allowed / make sense?
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
e
> > > doc-base package. If access to the
> > > web document root is unavoidable then use
> > >
> > > -/var/www
> > > +/var/www/html
> > >
> > > as the Document Root. This might be just a symbolic
> > > link to the location where the system administrator
> >
> > Fine with me, thanks.
>
> Anybody else willing to second this ?
>
Seconded.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi,
> which feels a bit strange. I would suggest "that are blocking", "that
> blocks", or maybe simply "blocking"
>
The second choice is not grammatically correct.
"that block" is better.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
n't see us changing the format of debian/control. But _if_ we ever do
that, we can rename it just as easily (debian/control.xml, or whatever
it's going to be, if ever).
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected random
Hi, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 08:01:46 +0200
> Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> many packages seem to contain .orig.tar.gz files which may or may not
>> be directly related to the files actually available from upstream.
>> T
gt; 2°) We add a test target in debian/rules. Autobuilders will need to
> be modified to take advantage of this. We can then go farther and
> implement special testing facility.
How would you distinguish a failed test from a debian/rules file which
doesn't have a "test" target
Hi,
Martin Michlmayr:
>* Tobias Burnus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-23 22:15]:
>> The current Debian Policy uses the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS),
>> version 2.1 (from 2000). The version 2.2 is out since May 2001 and I
>
>Seconded.
Thirded. ;-)
--
Matthi
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:40:12 +0200, Matthias Urlichs
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> Uhh, if you can't create the identical file, how can you get
> one with the same md5sum? Have you cracked md5sum? What am I
> missing?
>
If
I happen to have libxaw6-dev already installed, the build will proceed
happily, but yield a wholly different package, probably with different
bugs. :-/
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.n
preference, but NOT deprecating the latter options.
I am sorry if my original email led you to assume otherwise.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
- -
Button: If you want to ta
ld versions when they publish new ones.
Therefore, a comparison of the old .tar.gz files, just to check what (if
anything) changed, is unfeasible.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.nor
upstream.
If that is not possible or doesn't make sense for some reason, the way to go
from there to here should be documented either textually or, preferably,
achieved by running debian/package_upstream (or whatever).
Opinions?
--
Matthias Urlichs|{M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de |[
binutils and RCS.
I don't have the bandwidth for a complete Debian archive mirror, thus I can't
check all of sarge/sid.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
In
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.9.0
Severity: normal
Section 11.2 says
strip --strip-unneeded your-lib
Lintian, however, complains if the sections .comment or .note are
present, which strip doesn't think are unneeded.
I don't know whether this is a bug in policy, strip, or lintian,
37 matches
Mail list logo
