On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 05:38:39PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, David Prévot wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 09:57:57PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote:
> > > dpkg 1.17.11 and apt 1.0.7 recently implemented support for versioned
> > > p
module currently need to do things like
Depends: perl (>=y) | libfoo-bar-perl (>=x)
and the expressions may even need changes with newer perl releases.
See
https://lintian.debian.org/tags/versioned-dependency-satisfied-by-perl.html
--
Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org
--
To
modules and any modules installed into
> $Config{vendorarch} must depend on the relevant
> perlapi-* package.
>
> Hoping this is adequate.
Thanks! Looks good to me. As a very minor nit,
s/Perl package/Perl packages/
--
Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org
--
To UNSU
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 08:33:48PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote:
> Binary modules must specify a dependency on either
> perl or perl-base with
> a minimum version of the perl package
> - used to build the module, and must additionally depend on
>
f changing
$Config{vendorarch} without a major Perl version bump. Extending the
perlapi-* requirement seems a more robust solution, as per the attached
patch.
--
Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org
>From 1ff242b0a7eb5ba39ff18d51a2b2a92596f8b2ea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Niko Tyni
Date: Fri, 30 May
otherwise.
Proposed patch attached to make policy describe current practice.
--
Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org
>From ec6a223e9b667b4605fb8340db17b357749cdf12 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Niko Tyni
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 23:35:11 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] Document that @INC has /usr/lib/perl/5.18,
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.5.0
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-p...@lists.debian.org
Severity: minor
Policy version v3.9.0.0 (commit cc34dcc0) introduced
a new %Config reference earlier in the document, but
the explanatory footnote wasn't moved accordingly.
Proposed patch attached.
--
Niko
archlib
to include the multiarch triplet.
> Also, it would be nice if you can review bug #683495.
Will have a look at some point.
--
Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
welcome. If there's anything controversial
about the wording I'm proposing, please let me know.
--
Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org
>From ec6a223e9b667b4605fb8340db17b357749cdf12 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Niko Tyni
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 23:35:11 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] Document that
cfg is only on @INC because its location used
to be derived from the directory where Net/Config.pm resides, and
we already patch XML::SAX so much that moving ParserDetails.ini out
of @INC wouldn't really make much of a difference.
--
Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
trigger by restarting relevant
> + daemons or notifying users of further action.
> +
> +
Seconded. Sorry for blocking this.
--
Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubsc
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:31:24PM +, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:38:19PM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
> > While I do think this is a nice solution, I've got a couple of concerns:
> >
> > - is this overkill? Would it be enough for the lo
erally policy documents existing
practice, but no package is using this yet. Should we wait for at least some
level of adoption, probably by filing wishlist bugs on known affected daemons
like spamassassin, and see how it works out first?
--
Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org
--
To UNSUB
s. The module often contains only variable
> + settings. Such modules should be treated as configuration files
> + and installed under /etc/perl.
> +
> +
>
>
>
Seconded.
--
Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
is
> + configuration information, cases where the module file itself is
> + a configuration file.
> +
The last paragraph seems redundant to me. I suggest dropping it.
Otherwise it all looks good to me.
--
Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to de
On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 09:00:38AM +1000, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
> On 6 May 2010 23:26, Niko Tyni wrote:
> > I was trying to cater for the degenerate case of $Config{debian_abi}=0
> > (which breaks the above short-circuit form) so dependants wouldn't have
> > to chec
On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 09:39:42AM +1000, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
> On 6 May 2010 04:57, Niko Tyni wrote:
> > I'm thinking the dependants could use something like
> > "perlapi-" . ($Config{debian_abi} || $Config{version})
> Rather than "evaluates t
On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 02:37:18PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote:
> > >For convenience, the perl package could include the suffix and/or the
> > >whole string in something like $Config{debian_abi}. In that case we
> > >should probably mandate that packages need to use it
Feel free to s/abi/api/ if it truely bothers you.
Not really, just wondering. It's probably best to stick to the tradition.
--
Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100505113718.ga29...@madeleine.local.invalid
X=/usr is the default anyway with INSTALLDIRS=vendor.
--
Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100427204436.ga29...@madeleine.local.invalid
he next
upstream version comes around.
Obviously I'm doing my best to test the choices in experimental first,
but surprises can still happen and I'd like a last resort way out.
--
Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@list
mzscheme, have taken care of httpd-cgi in one way or
another.
Neither of the remaining packages has had a maintainer upload since the
bug report; boa had two NMUs in the next few days and none since that.
Cheers,
--
Niko Tyni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
22 matches
Mail list logo
