Le Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 09:52:49AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs a écrit :
>
> Charles Plessy:
> > Later, I might propose on debian-devel and debian-dpkg to forbid empty
> > fields
> > in the whole specification (which means, since we are not using empty
> > fields,
> > to guarantee that valid files d
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 08:37:43PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Bill Allombert writes:
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:23:17AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> >> On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 11:19:15AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> >> > How about the attached patch, that adds "Its value
Hi,
Bill Allombert writes:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:23:17AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 11:19:15AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> > How about the attached patch, that adds "Its value must not be empty."
>> > after "The field ends at the end of the line or at t
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:07:32AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 07:14:07PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:23:17AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > > Control: tags -1 + patch
> > >
> > > On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 11:19:15AM +0900, Charles
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 07:14:07PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:23:17AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > Control: tags -1 + patch
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 11:19:15AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > > How about the attached patch, that adds "Its value must n
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:23:17AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + patch
>
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 11:19:15AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > How about the attached patch, that adds "Its value must not be empty."
> > after "The field ends at the end of the line or at the e
Hi,
Charles Plessy:
> Later, I might propose on debian-devel and debian-dpkg to forbid empty fields
> in the whole specification (which means, since we are not using empty fields,
> to guarantee that valid files do not and will not contain empty fields).
>
> (For the avoidance of doubt, by empty
Le Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 12:04:05AM +0100, Bill Allombert a écrit :
>
> Thus I would like to restrict this bug to what is agreed, i.e. binary
> package control files. This also side-step nicely the definition of "empty".
Hi Bill and everybody,
if we all agree that empty fields are not allowed in
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 08:58:44AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Hi Henrique and Bill,
>
> first, on the original purpose of this bug, it is to document that empty
> fields
> in binary package control files are not supported and can crash tools such as
> apt. There, "empty" meant that the semic
Le Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 04:14:14PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a écrit :
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
> >
> > Then they are not empty: there is a big difference between "Depends:" and
> > "Depends: ${foo}". I think that it would be very confusing if we would
> > refer
> >
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , 2014-11-23, 18:49:
> >>This bug is mostly to document a check in dak. Are you
> >>suggesting the check is looking at the debian/control file and
> >>reject source packages with empty fields?
> >
> >That would be broken beyond
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , 2014-11-23, 18:49:
This bug is mostly to document a check in dak. Are you suggesting the
check is looking at the debian/control file and reject source packages
with empty fields?
That would be broken beyond belief! debian/control might not even
*exist* after s
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:15:45AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Le Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 03:08:47PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a
> > écrit :
> > > On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > > > do you have examples of packages having empt
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:15:45AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 03:08:47PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a écrit
> :
> > On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > >
> > > do you have examples of packages having empty fields in source package
> > > control
> >
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 03:08:47PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a écrit
> :
> > On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > >
> > > do you have examples of packages having empty fields in source package
> > > control
> > > files ? I have not
Le Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 03:08:47PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a écrit :
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
> >
> > do you have examples of packages having empty fields in source package
> > control
> > files ? I have not found any. (In the sense that a field that only
> > con
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 08:15:03AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a écrit
> :
> > Empty fields in debian/control must be valid in *source* packages. It is a
> > widely used feature of the dpkg-dev suite, and it has been around for a very
> > very l
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Anyway, this is a second try.
>
> Cheers,
> commit d450ce8f978bad0f3927ea055698b789055dfa3a
> Author: Bill Allombert
> Date: Sun Nov 23 16:16:21 2014 +0100
>
> Document that empty field values are only allowed in debian/control.
>
> diff --git
Le Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 08:15:03AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a écrit :
>
> Empty fields in debian/control must be valid in *source* packages. It is a
> widely used feature of the dpkg-dev suite, and it has been around for a very
> very long time AFAIK.
Hi Henrique,
do you have examples
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 01:46:10PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> > index 6eac491..66de529 100644
> > --- a/policy.sgml
> > +++ b/policy.sgml
> > @@ -2556,13 +2556,15 @@ endif
> >
> > Packag
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Bill Allombert wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 6eac491..66de529 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -2556,13 +2556,15 @@ endif
>
> Package: libc6
>
> the field name is Package and the field value
> libc6
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 08:15:03AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Le Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:56:15AM +0100, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> > > What about automatically generated control files and substvar ?
> > > e.g.
> > > Depends: ${misc:Dep
> From: Charles Plessy
> Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 11:16:50 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] Disallow empty fields in control files, as apt and dak
> reject them already.
>
> Closes: 666726
> ---
> policy.sgml |8
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/policy.sgml
On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:59:45PM +0200, Andreas Noteng wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: minor
>
> The policy does not clearly state if empty control fields in debian/control
> are
> allowed or not. dpkg accepts te use of empty fields, apt does not.
> IMHO empty control fields are bad
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:56:15AM +0100, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> > What about automatically generated control files and substvar ?
> > e.g.
> > Depends: ${misc:Depends}
> > where ${misc:Depends} resolve to the empty string ?
> >
> > Does dpkg-gencon
Le Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:56:15AM +0100, Bill Allombert a écrit :
>
> What about automatically generated control files and substvar ?
> e.g.
> Depends: ${misc:Depends}
> where ${misc:Depends} resolve to the empty string ?
>
> Does dpkg-gencontrol take care of that ? In that case we should not le
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:05:05AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:23:17AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
> > Control: tags -1 + patch
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 11:19:15AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > > How about the attached patch, that adds "Its value mus
Le Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:23:17AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
> Control: tags -1 + patch
>
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 11:19:15AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > How about the attached patch, that adds "Its value must not be empty."
> > after "The field ends at the end of the line or at th
Control: tags -1 + patch
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 11:19:15AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> How about the attached patch, that adds "Its value must not be empty."
> after "The field ends at the end of the line or at the end of the last
> continuation line".
Seconded.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 + patch
Bug #666726 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Clarify if empty control fields are
allowed or not
Added tag(s) patch.
--
666726: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=666726
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with probl
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
usertags 666726 normative proposal
thanks
Le Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:10:35PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit :
>
> I agree this could be clarified in policy. In pratice we already
> disallow empty package relations (besides apt choking on them there is
> al
Hi,
I agree this could be clarified in policy. In pratice we already
disallow empty package relations (besides apt choking on them there is
also an explicit check in dak for this).
Ansgar
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trou
Package: debian-policy
Severity: minor
The policy does not clearly state if empty control fields in debian/control are
allowed or not. dpkg accepts te use of empty fields, apt does not.
IMHO empty control fields are bad practice, and should explicitly not be
allowed.
This bug is of relevance to
33 matches
Mail list logo
