: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 17:03:19 +0100
From: Peter B
Reply-To: pe...@pblackman.plus.com
To: 1069...@bugs.debian.org
CC: debian-de...@lists.debian.org, Maytham Alsudany
On 14/07/2024 16:54, Maytham Alsudany wrote:
Hi,
Ping for further feedback or seconds for proposed policy change
ttps://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=997948
Regards,
Peter
Regarding ;-
"(for example linking against static libraries, builds for
source-centered languages such as Go or Rust, usage of header-only
C/C++ libraries, injecting data blobs into code, etc.)"
Perhaps Pascal & Lazarus could be added to that list for clarity? [1]
Regards,
Pet
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.3.0.3
Severity: minor
Tags: patch
Dear Maintainer,
the abstract of the Debian Manifest (document ID debian-manifesto, installed as
file /usr/share/doc-base/debian-manifesto) is written in all verbatim format
(except for the initial line), which to me, judging fro
On 12/1/17 11:19, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Is there some reason why exacdt standardisation of the filenames is
> necessary here ? For most of the uses I can think of, it is OK to
> look in a handful of files to see which one might answer the question.
I wrote the bug originally.
My goal was simply t
at and listen to somebody
else or come up with their own documents as and when they see fit.
Cheers,
--
| .''`. ** Debian **
Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal
http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System
Package: developers-reference
I just had a conversation with pabs on irc about developers apparently
failing to think about thier packages testing status before uploading to
unstable and he suggested that something should be in the developers
reference. I'm not sure where it would fit best tho
small issues with the spec.
> >>>
> >>> - SIL Open Font License (OFL), Version 1.1. should just use the short
> >>> name OFL-1.1 in the License field.
> >>>
> >>> - As it isn't among the common-licenses, you need to include the full
> &g
So since no one had anything to add, here is a concrete proposal. All
of this reflects current practice, I believe. Since the addition of
status_of_proc to /lib/lsb/init-functions, this has been quite
standardized in practice, and as I wrote earlier, more than half of the
affected packages are al
I would like to see whether we can create some progress around this bug.
Over the past few years I've been bugging packages to add the "status"
action to their init scripts. We currently have about 55% of packages
supporting this, including most of the most popular packages. We also
have a linti
Hello
Because /run is not mounted as tmpfs when it should, system startup
breaks totally.
I've added
if grep -E -q "^[^[:space:]]+ /run (dev)?tmpfs" /proc/mounts; then
mount -n -o remount,${dev_mount_options} -t tmpfs tmpfs /run
else
mount -n -o rw -t tmpfs tmp
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:27:00PM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:45:06AM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:40:52PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > From discussion on IRC earlier this evening, it looks like the most
> > &
that this is a somewhat contrived case, but still... wouldn't
it break, or would that be considered a bug in the packages'
dependencies? If the latter, well, wouldn't this leave the maintainer
of foo a bit vulnerable against random decisions by the maintainers of
bar-dev?
G'
;s another
kettle of beer)
So... should Policy 5.2 also list Architecture in the source stanza,
or should #509702 be closed with "unfortunately this is not allowed"? :)
(of course, the former option would be preferable if it actually works :)
G'luck,
Peter
--
Peter Pentchev
is that it will
> not as long as the free-dependency can be used - in case the or-group is
> free | non-free, of course. Your turn.
Hmm, what about this, admittedly slightly contrived, but still possible
case:
1. A package, at installation time, depends on free1 | free2 | non-free
2
ss wrong I won't mind adding a link to it.
> By doing that, we define the term "porterbox", too, which is nice.
Cheers,
weasel
--
| .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal
http://www
Priority: extra
/usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/debiann/control:Priority: extra
/usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/debians/control:Priority: extra
[r...@straylight ~]$
G'luck,
Peter
--
Peter Pentchev r...@space.bgr...@ringlet.netr...@freebsd.org
PGP key:http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roa
rver)
Hope that helps!
G'luck,
Peter
--
Peter Pentchev r...@space.bgr...@ringlet.netr...@freebsd.org
PGP key:http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553
If the meanings of 'true' and 'fa
portable. Generally, it should not be used for new
> +packages. Also note that the wildcards are not expanded
> + then compared, they are simply matched. If
G'luck,
Peter
--
Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.netr...@space.bgr...@freebsd.org
PGP key:http://peop
ou say "sure, we
could do that if we need to". How many times has this happened so far
in the thread? I haven't been keeping count.
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On Monday 11 May 2009 09:49:31 Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2009, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Well, debuild calls dpkg-buildpackage most of the time, unless you give a
> > specific target (which would again possibly be of interest to those who
> > are interested in
On Monday 11 May 2009 00:06:09 Steve Langasek wrote:
> Or maybe I've misunderstood, and there are
> Debian developers who are building official packages for *upload* by
> calling debian/rules by hand, and that's what people are concerned about
> preserving while still getting the benefits of these
On Sunday 10 May 2009 13:56:04 Steve Langasek wrote:
> I thought it was generally recognized that it's a Bad Idea to implement
> config files using your interpreter's 'include' functionality, but that's
> basically what we have here.
Guillem pointed out one problem: Either you do it via a make inc
On Monday 04 May 2009 08:35:18 Guillem Jover wrote:
I like this proposal. A small nit:
> ,-- /usr/share/dpkg/build-options.mk
> # distro defaults
> FOO := distro
Please be sure to use
FOO = bar
instead of ":=", unless you have determined that you really wanted ":=". In
most cases it won't m
to the *last* item of the text he quoted, not to the whole
portion above it :) Thus, IMHO his first "really needed?" question
referred specifically to the "ordered lists" item, and the "I don't think
they are needed" referred specifically to the "u
vsftpd)
Isn't this one "special"? They do not add a package-specific user,
rather they add a system user with a well-known name to provide
anonymous FTP access in the traditional manner. FWIW, proftpd does
this too, as, I assume, most other FTP daemons would want to.
G
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.0.1
Severity: minor
The `start', `stop', `restart', and `force-reload' options should be
supported by all scripts in `/etc/init.d', the `reload' option is
optional.
Is there any reason not to upgrade "should" to "must"? What is the
point of an i
Then this is worse, this package should live in non-free.
Hmm, other packages that are installers for non free software (e.g.
flashplugin-nonfree , ) also seem to live in contrib. IMO they are if
anything worse because they download and install non-free software
without further user inte
You might as well kill the entire priority business from packages altogether
and rely entirely on the overrides. The priority is, after all, not really a
property of a package but a property of the distribution.
As long as there is no practical way for a package maintainer to verify the
correc
n other
languages - even the documentation of the "noopt" tag says so :)
Keeping the multi-line version allows people to easily adapt it to their
packages.
Thus, it is good to have an example showing how to do it the
if/then/else way, while possibly mentioning the inline version.
G
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.3.0
Severity: normal
There is some lack of clarity in the policy or perhaps some confusion among
packagers and thence inconsistencies among packages regarding the handling of
upstream changelog files. Policy says that upstream changelogs should be
installed as
Big international commercial organization is seeking of talented, honest,
reliable representatives in different regions. Because of developing of our
business the organization is proposing to you to become its part. You can work
part time or full time.
Requirements:
Internet Connection
Basic
general case, only if the time-consuming and
parallelizable part of the build is done in the binary-* targets
instead of the build-* targets. (The build and build-* targets are not
run as root.) Which should be relatively rare.
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
signature
_OPTIONS and sets a DEB_BUILD_OPT_FOO for every "foo" word.
It allows you to use 'ifdef' in the rest of debian/rules, which is much
more natural than ifneq(...) or ifeq(...) with the empty string.
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Adding the version numbers to the enumerated licenses would be backwards
incompatible. Under the current policy, a package using the GPL 3 would be
required to link to the common licenses, but under this proposed change the
link would have to be removed again. Since the GPL 3 is here, you migh
Tak for din mail - jeg er ikke på kontoret før mandag den 30.ds - og ser ikke
din mail inden.
Prøv evt. at ringe mit mobilnr.
Venlig hilsen
Jan Nielsen
olicy to deprecate doing anything at all
in the 'build' target, and recommend that everything be done (directly
or indirectly) in the 'binary' target? That would certainly simplify
the world.
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
a comma. I proposed a
makefile snippet earlier that works around this and also provides a
nicer interface for the rest of the makefile.
Aside from those issues, here's a +1 vote from a non-developer on your diff.
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
, as a lot of upstream Makefiles may not be -j-safe
everywhere. This is true of one package I maintain, so I construct a
$(MAKE_-J) and pass it manually to the $(MAKE) targets that are
-j-safe, and not to the ones that aren't.
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
o think for
a moment to figure out when the conditional is true and when it is
false. (And I have to cut and paste it from somewhere to get the
syntax right.) Whereas in my example it is immediately obvious.
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
patch below, wording is borrowed from a paragraph
about the binary target.
This is not really a functional change, just explaining best practices.
It's also not officially a proposal, as my key isn't in the keyring.
Peter
--- policy.sgml
+++ policy.sgml
@@ -1738,1
ariable is deprecated
Just a minor typo note - that ought to be 'substitution' with a 't' :)
> + since dpkg 1.13.19 substitution variable can be
> useful for this purpose.
>
>
Other than that, the patch looks good to me, FWIW :)
G&#
As ntp comaintainer, I have so far resisted adding the time-daemon provides
because I find that the interface and the purpose is underspecified.
For example, nothing specifies whether a "time-daemon" should set the true
time, or a synchronized time, or just a reasonable time. There is nothing
The underlying question here was really, "Should PDF documentation be
installed compressed?" (Or PostScript or OpenOffice etc. in place of
PDF.) The policy is not worded precisely enough on that subject.
Obviously, you don't want to install HTML compressed. So I take it
that "text documenta
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.1
Severity: normal
Section 9.3.3.2 "Running initscripts" reads:
The program invoke-rc.d is provided to make it easier for package
maintainers to properly invoke an initscript, obeying runlevel and
other locally-defined constraints that might limit
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.1
Severity: minor
Tags: patch
One change from 3.7.2.0 -> 3.7.2.1 was incorrect - by which I mean, the
old and new text are both incorrect. See patch.
--- policy.sgml.old 2006-06-30 04:22:43.0 -0500
+++ policy.sgml 2006-06-30 04:22:50.0 -0
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> On the other hand the savings can be huge. Think about how many
> packages install latex and fonts and generate the documentation
> needlessly during build. Installing and purging latex as well as all
> the initex runs and font generation takes up a awfull lot of time
One question to ask is perhaps whether splitting the build dependencies
into several sets is useful at all, considering that the current state
of having effectively only one useful set has persistent for such a
long time.
Not a lot of people really understand the current definition, and this
p
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.0
From upgrading-checklist:
* All fields, apart from the Uploaders field, in the control file are
supposed to be a single logical line, which may be spread over
multiple physical lines (newline followed by space is elided).
Policy 5.1:
Some field
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.0
Severity: wishlist
I would like to see some clarifications for section 12.3 "Additional
documentation", in particular this:
Any additional documentation that comes with the package may be installed
at the discretion of the package maintainer. Text docum
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 09:49:38PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> >> [policy 3.1.2]
> >>
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 09:49:38PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> [policy 3.1.2]
> > I would suggest using 0.MMDD to avoid using epoch when upstream
> > finally decides to use version 1.0 instead.
>
> What'
oid using epoch when upstream
finally decides to use version 1.0 instead.
Peter
he future. :-)
On the contrary, when you both participate I'm reminded that you are two
distinct people. :-)
It would help if I met you both in person...
Peter
Title: Are you smoker? You can save money on tobacco!
Are you smoker?
We are proud to invite You to new Tobacco Shop http://www.megatobacco.com.
We have special prices at discounts and free shipping as our
gift for our customers.
We have more than 100 of marks of cigarettes from Marlboro, Cam
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > gri has had it for a long time.
>
> Oops; my script was buggy. There are at least 95 packages in sid/main
> which satisfy this criterion.
I was hoping the package count would increase.
:-)
dep field.
gri has had it for a long time.
Peter
">, man(7), the examples
> + created by debmake or dh_make, or the
> + directory /usr/share/doc/man-db/examples.
> +
> +
> +
>
>
> You may forward a complaint about a missing manpage to the
Yes, undocumented(7) needs to die. Seconded.
always be the Right Thing. cf. config files in .d
directories like cron.d, ip-up.d or similar.
yours,
peter
--
PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
r postinst script.
| This is no longer necessary, and packages no longer should create the
| symlinks.
yours,
peter
--
PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
messages
ch which combines both then. I also removed some old cruft
> > about a.out and -N.
> >
> > Any seconds?
> >
> Certainly. Seconded.
Me too.
yours,
peter
--
PGP signed and encrypte
r some of my packages.
Seconded.
yours,
peter
--
PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
messages preferred.| : :' : The universal
| `. `' Operating
maintain
> symlinks in /usr/doc, we are in fact allowing new packages not to
> fiddle with symlinks anymore.
>
> I'm looking for seconds for this proposal, which is *just* to stop
> requiring symlinks.
seconded
yours,
to refer to it? The only thing I can see is that it
get's expanded if I use tab completion, but that's not a real problem.
yours,
peter
--
PGP signed and encrypted | .'&
nce we'll be recompiling lots of stuff anyway
> in sarge for the gcc 3.0 transition, if this happens first we'll lose
> all that /usr/doc stuff essentially for free.
Please make this change.
yours,
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 11:06:22AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Peter Moulder wrote:
> > The thread begins at
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200112/msg01329.html
> > where someone says it would be useful if he could ensure that a
&
[Have cc'd some of the people whose postings are referred to. Since they
didn't ask to be cc'd, I've left them out of the Mail-followup-to header;
they can follow debian-policy if they're interested in the subject.]
On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 06:23:54PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> According to
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.0
Severity: wishlist
From section 7.2 `Binary Dependencies' of debian-policy:
#`Depends'
# This declares an absolute dependency. A package will not be
# configured unless all of the packages listed in its `Depends'
# field have b
idden as it's a
slippery slope. One would then only need to package non-free stuff
together with larger related free software in order to get into main
something that would not be allowed by itself.
Thanks,
--
Peter Galbraith
console driver? It is unicode capable?
>
> Nevertheless my opinion that using UTF-8 by default is a good idea. The
> only problem is what latin1 users would think about that. Or what would
> think some of the users of vim who hate emacs.
I couldn't configure emacs for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 09:09:03AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > I should probably shut up about this, but something has always
> > bugged me (which means I'm probably doing it wrong).
> >
>
yours,
peter
--
PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
messages preferred.| : :' :By professionals,
| `. `' for professionals
http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/
t; used by the various Debian packages. This new policy should be in complete
> effect by the release of Debian 2.4.
s/2.4/woody+1/
Besides this I think it is a good idea.
yours,
peter
--
PGP signed and encry
onal, as in latest dpkg-dev
So debian-changelog-mode.el should change its font-lock regexp
such that # is optional now? This is a done deal?
Thanks,
Peter
ptional, it doesn't have to be a good idea. And SHOULD is stronger
> than a recommendation, it means you have to do this unless there's
> a good reason not to.
Maybe we could add WILL and SHALL to make things clearer?
/me runs.
yours,
yours,
peter
--
PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
messages preferred.| : :' :By professionals,
| `. `' for professionals
http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/
nnot see the benefits of
> > the added c00lness effect such a change would bring is not fit to be One Of
> > Us[TM].
>
> I second it.
Me too
--
Peter Novodvorsky http://www.altlinux.ru/AltLinux Team, Russia
Debian.Org http://debian
ncludes X support, be provided; or the package's priority be
> + lowered.
>
>
>
seconded.
yours,
peter
--
PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
messages
/science
does not exist. I'll start moving packages of mine when I see
the section actually listed anywhere.
Peter
Hi Julian!
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Version: 3.5.2.0
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > Policy should now require packages to specify build time dependencies
> &
to revisit this, but until then,
> and especially when we're trying to release, this is a very bad idea.
I think we agree that this goal cannot be reached for woody, but
it should be reachable for woody+1.
yours,
yours,
peter
--
PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
messages preferred.| : :' :By professionals,
| `. `' for professionals
http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/
Hi Sean!
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> So, perhaps we should drop the bar a little. If your package is not at least
> 3.x.x, it gets held.
make it so
yours,
peter
--
PGP sign
to build correctly. If it
+ or to not be installed
> does, it should specify this relationship'.
Sounds fine too.
yours,
peter
--
PGP signed and encrypted | .'
,
peter
PS: Since I don't think that changes the requirements for Source Packages
I did not make this a [PROPOSAL]. If you disagree please retitle the
bug and readjust the severity.
--
PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
mes
"Oliver Elphick" wrote:
> Moshe Zadka wrote:
> >OTOH, it bothers me that there are subdirectories under /usr/bin.
> >E.g.:
> >Try typing "mh" at the prompt for weird behaviour.
Me too.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] mh
> bash: /usr/bin/mh: is a directory
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> What's weird a
file name:
| /usr/share/common-licenses/FDL
This is a bug in dh_make and that's it.
--
Peter
ebhelper maintainer about this issue is not
that of a bad idea.
--
Peter
sk-doc from the list of task
packages that users can easily pick from, they _will_ have to go
out of their way to get them installed individually as packages.
Peter
Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 21-Aug-00, 15:56 (CDT), Nicol?s Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Besides, it would be nice to have many rfc packages: doc-rfc-mail,
> > doc-rfc-web, all of them puting packages in /usr/share/doc/rfc. And
> > there could be symlinkf pointing to the most recent
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 03:14:07AM +0300, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> > /usr/share/rfc/
> >
> > Makes more sense to me. I don't see a problem with the package name.
>
> /usr/share/doc/rfc is much better. You don't need an rfc package for that.
>
ink that Jason had a good point about the filter-down
of bug reports, so I just threw this last bit out as a possibility, and
don't think it should really be used.
Just some ideas from an interested Debian user,
Peter
--
It just wouldn't do for building contractors to say thing like, &qu
simply send email - could be treated as
debbugs though)
Given, Submit-Bugs-Style and Submit-Bugs-To could be merged.
yours,
peter
--
PGP encrypted messages preferred.
http://www.cosy.sbg.ac.at/~ppalfrad/
pgpWcRkwwfpaL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
nd equiv packages.
yours,
peter
--
PGP encrypted messages preferred.
http://www.cosy.sbg.ac.at/~ppalfrad/
pgpTXAa65kRf7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
I would be nice to have a parsable Author field such that our
package web pages could list upstream authors (perhaps with a
name and no email if the author doesn't want to get too much
emails too easily).
But such a text field probably belongs in the control file, not
the copyright file.
a separate patch.
> + programs (like IMAP daemons) must lock the mailbox in a
> + NFS-safe way. This means that fcntl() locking must
s/a NFS-safe/an NFS-safe/
>
> - No package should ever install files into the directories
> + Package must not install files into the directories
^^^
"Packages", or "A package".
Peter
ystem for.
Please Cc any replies, I'm not subscribed to the policy list.
- --
\\//
peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/
Statement concerning unsolicited e-mail according to Swedish law:
http://www.softwolves.pp.se/peter/reklampost.html
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v
Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 03:14:55PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > How about:
> >
> > 12345678901234
> > deb-docs -> deb-docs
> > deb-packaging-> deb-packaging
Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 05:11:45PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 May 2000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> >
> > > Is there a really good reason why we shouldn't have long package names?
> >
> > dpkg -l, but this is not a really good reason :-)
>
> I had thought of t
Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 29-Mar-00, 10:32 (CST), Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> :
> > Perhaps that's because (Slink) policy says:
> >
> > 4.7. Configuration files
> >
> >
> > Any configuratio
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
