Raphael Hertzog writes:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Here is an updated patch for stating that the Debian archive doesn't
>> support listing multiple distributions in the *.changes file. This
>> reduces the footnote of distributions to just a couple of examples
>> and defers to
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here is an updated patch for stating that the Debian archive doesn't
> support listing multiple distributions in the *.changes file. This
> reduces the footnote of distributions to just a couple of examples and
> defers to the devref for everything else.
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 20 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 43cf4d6..528c4b9 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -3118,76 +3118,39 @@ Package: libc6
> distribution(s) where this version of the package should
> be installed. Va
Here is an updated patch for stating that the Debian archive doesn't
support listing multiple distributions in the *.changes file. This
reduces the footnote of distributions to just a couple of examples and
defers to the devref for everything else.
If this looks like the right approach, I'm looki
Colin Watson writes ("Bug#514919: Removing support for uploads to multiple
distributions"):
> The mythical dpkg programmer's manual? :-)
The current policy manual was of course made by merging what I called
the dpkg programmers' manual and what I called the policy manu
On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 22:59 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> As far as I know, the archive maps uploads to testing to
> testing-proposed-updates, and so both end up in t-p-u.
That's correct. The s-p-u and t-p-u uploads I've made for devscripts
all had either "stable" or "testing" in the changelog.
Ad
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> As far as I know, the archive maps uploads to testing to
> testing-proposed-updates, and so both end up in t-p-u.
Yeah, but t-p-u is the recommended method, IIRC.
> There is also testing-security, which first gets uploaded to
> security-master.debian.org and then also gets
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 12:19:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> I now have:
>
> + The testing distribution normally receives
> + its packages via the unstable distribution
> + after a short time lag. However sometimes, such as
> +
On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 12:19 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I now have:
>
> + The testing distribution normally receives
> + its packages via the unstable distribution
> + after a short time lag. However sometimes, such as
> + d
"Adam D. Barratt" writes:
> That section sounds slightly strange to me. It starts by saying that
> one cannot upload directly to testing, and finishes by indicating that a
> distribution of t-p-u is used to upload directly to testing.
>
> Maybe something like
>
> + before the uns
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 19:20 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here's a proposed patch that limits the footnote to only discussing the
> values that go into *.changes files, removes extraneous information about
> the relative risk of unstable vs. testing, and mentions the other values
> commonly seen in
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 19:35 +, Mark Hymers wrote:
> In gmane.linux.debian.devel.policy, you wrote:
> > I think it's worth mentioning in the policy footnote that the Debian
> > archive doesn't (well, won't, to be entirely accurate) support the
> > feature and removing the suggestion that there i
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> It depends, and there can be some repetition when needed to ease the
> comprehension. But you don't need to know the .changes syntax to create
> policy conformant packages, you just have to know how to call
> dpgk-genchanges and what to put in debian/files and debian/cha
Colin Watson writes:
> However, I'm not convinced that it is correct to remove this feature
> from the *syntax*. While Ubuntu's archive maintenance software doesn't
> support it right now, several people have requested it
> (https://bugs.launchpad.net/soyuz/+bug/235064). If you're maintaining
> p
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> Agreed.
>
> In the long term, I would like to move all the documentation about the
> syntax into dpkg itself and have the policy document how Debian uses
> dpkg rather than documenting dpkg itself.
>
> It's already in our TODO list to document the format of .dsc, .change
In gmane.linux.debian.devel.policy, you wrote:
> I think it's worth mentioning in the policy footnote that the Debian
> archive doesn't (well, won't, to be entirely accurate) support the
> feature and removing the suggestion that there is a "frozen"
> distribution. As such, I'd be quite happy with
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 19:11 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> I agree that dak not currently supporting multiple-distribution upload
> is not a reason to change policy about the format of the .changes files,
> since this is well supported by dpkg and other tools and can be useful
> with other upload q
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:22:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Adam D. Barratt" writes:
>
> > The Policy section detailing the "Distribution" field in .changes files
> > specifies that the field may contain a space-separated list of
> > distributions. Whilst this is technically accurate, the fe
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Colin Watson wrote:
> > In the long term, I would like to move all the documentation about the
> > syntax into dpkg itself and have the policy document how Debian uses
> > dpkg rather than documenting dpkg itself.
>
> The mythical dpkg programmer's manual? :-)
We do have quit
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 03:21:28PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Colin Watson wrote:
> > However, I'm not convinced that it is correct to remove this feature
> > from the *syntax*. While Ubuntu's archive maintenance software doesn't
> > support it right now, several people ha
* Adam D. Barratt [090211 22:30]:
> The Policy section detailing the "Distribution" field in .changes files
> specifies that the field may contain a space-separated list of
> distributions. Whilst this is technically accurate, the feature has been
> deprecated since the "testing" distribution beca
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Colin Watson wrote:
> However, I'm not convinced that it is correct to remove this feature
> from the *syntax*. While Ubuntu's archive maintenance software doesn't
> support it right now, several people have requested it
> (https://bugs.launchpad.net/soyuz/+bug/235064). If you'
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 09:27:17PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> The Policy section detailing the "Distribution" field in .changes files
> specifies that the field may contain a space-separated list of
> distributions. Whilst this is technically accurate, the feature has been
> deprecated since t
In gmane.linux.debian.devel.policy, you wrote:
> I think we should move distribution field from upload target to a
> "final target" distribution, i.e. a sort of quality assessment.
> I really don't like that maintainers fill a RC bug only to stop
> migrating a package from stable to testing.
Russ Allbery wrote:
"Adam D. Barratt" writes:
The Policy section detailing the "Distribution" field in .changes files
specifies that the field may contain a space-separated list of
distributions. Whilst this is technically accurate, the feature has been
deprecated since the "testing" distribut
"Adam D. Barratt" writes:
> The Policy section detailing the "Distribution" field in .changes files
> specifies that the field may contain a space-separated list of
> distributions. Whilst this is technically accurate, the feature has been
> deprecated since the "testing" distribution became an o
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.1.0
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
The Policy section detailing the "Distribution" field in .changes files
specifies that the field may contain a space-separated list of
distributions. Whilst this is technically accurate, the feature has been
deprecated since the "test
27 matches
Mail list logo
