Re: Bug#1095791: dpkg: incompatible and Policy-violating R³ default change breaks packages’ builds

Hi Guillem, On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 10:50:39AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Wed, 2025-02-12 at 04:16:29 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > dpkg 1.22.13 implemented a backwards-incompatible change, > > violating Policy (which states the default value is most > > certainly *not* “no”) and breakin

Re: Bug#1095791: dpkg: incompatible and Policy-violating R³ default change breaks packages’ builds

Hi! On Thu, 2025-02-13 at 12:34:52 +0100, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 10:50:39AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > > On Wed, 2025-02-12 at 04:16:29 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > > dpkg 1.22.13 implemented a backwards-incompatible change, > > > violating Policy (which states

Re: Bug#1095791: dpkg: incompatible and Policy-violating R³ default change breaks packages’ builds

Control: severity -1 normal Hi! On Wed, 2025-02-12 at 04:16:29 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Source: dpkg > Version: 1.22.13 > Severity: serious > Justification: Policy §5.6.31 > X-Debbugs-Cc: t...@mirbsd.de > dpkg 1.22.13 implemented a backwards-incompatible change, > violating Policy (which

Re: Bug#1095791: dpkg: incompatible and Policy-violating R³ default change breaks packages’ builds

On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 04:16:29 +0100 (CET) Thorsten Glaser wrote: Source: dpkg Version: 1.22.13 Severity: serious Justification: Policy §5.6.31 X-Debbugs-Cc: t...@mirbsd.de dpkg 1.22.13 implemented a backwards-incompatible change, violating Policy (which states the default value is most certainly

Processed: Re: Bug#1084924: Call for votes

Processing control commands: > reassign 1084924 debian-policy Bug #1084924 [tech-ctte] The system-log-daemon virtual package Bug reassigned from package 'tech-ctte' to 'debian-policy'. Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #1084924 to the same values previously set Ignoring request to a

Re: Converting and unifying policy into a single formatting language?

Hello, On Sat 25 Jan 2025 at 06:52pm +01, Guillem Jover wrote: >> Hmm. Do we actually have any duplicate filenames? > > Not currently, but we'll do. For the documents that are currently > split in chapters on output, we'd have ch1, ch2, and index duplicates: > > $ dpkg -L debian-policy | grep

Re: Converting and unifying policy into a single formatting language?

Hi! On Sat, 2025-01-25 at 12:29:56 +, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Sat 25 Jan 2025 at 12:11pm +01, Guillem Jover wrote: > > This multitude of formatting languages has bothered me for a while, > > every time I take a peek at the sources. :) So this time around I > > pondered how hard could it be to

Re: Bug#1094145: debian-policy: Remove or significantly minimize manual page requirement

Jeremy Bícha writes: > The manpage does not really have useful content. as a user i both agree and disagree with this: i agree that documentation is not very good, but i disagree that nothing would be better than something. Even if people dont use man themselves, the man-page online is often the

Re: Converting and unifying policy into a single formatting language?

Hello, On Sat 25 Jan 2025 at 12:11pm +01, Guillem Jover wrote: > This multitude of formatting languages has bothered me for a while, > every time I take a peek at the sources. :) So this time around I > pondered how hard could it be to do that unification, and started > looking into this, which d

Processed: Re: Processed (with 1 error): Re: Bug#1093000: release-notes: mouseover over tables makes it hard to read

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > clone 1093000 -1 Bug #1093000 [release-notes] release-notes: mouseover over tables makes it hard to read Bug 1093000 cloned as bug 1093117 > reassign -1 src:developers-reference Bug #1093117 [release-notes] release-notes: mouseover over tables ma

Processed: Re: Bug#1089110: [PATCH] Document that packages cannot require man / info / locale files

Processing control commands: > tag -1 + pending Bug #1089110 [debian-policy] [PATCH] Document that packages cannot require man / info / locale files Added tag(s) pending. -- 1089110: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1089110 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.o

Re: Bug#1089110: [PATCH] Document that packages cannot require man / info / locale files

Sean Whitton wrote: > On Sat 07 Dec 2024 at 04:45pm -08, Josh Triplett wrote: > > Anecdata aside, one other way to evaluate this is to look at the type of > > files packages store under /usr/share/locale. > > > > A look at the Contents file gives a complete list of what types of files > > packages

Processed: Re: Bug#1088443: debian-policy: Recommend Debian package version format when upstream has no releases

Processing control commands: > reassign -1 src:developers-reference Bug #1088443 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Recommend Debian package version format when upstream has no releases Bug reassigned from package 'debian-policy' to 'src:developers-reference'. Ignoring request to alter found versions

Processed: Re: Bug#1088443: debian-policy: Recommend Debian package version format when upstream has no releases

Processing control commands: > reassign -1 developers-reference Bug #1088443 [src:developers-reference] debian-policy: Recommend Debian package version format when upstream has no releases Bug reassigned from package 'src:developers-reference' to 'developers-reference'. Ignoring request to alter

Re: Bug#1088443: debian-policy: Recommend Debian package version format when upstream has no releases

On Sun, Dec 01, 2024 at 09:44:17PM -0800, Otto Kekäläinen wrote: > My intent here was to suggest specifically that the version of form > 0.0~git20130606.b00ec39-1 would be elevated as the Policy recommended > form, as it makes sense and is already most popular. For the record, I assume it's most p

Processed: Re: Bug#1079967: should policy and dpkg agree on allowed versions?

Processing control commands: > reassign -1 debian-policy Bug #1079967 [dpkg-dev,debian-policy] should policy and dpkg agree on allowed versions? Bug reassigned from package 'dpkg-dev,debian-policy' to 'debian-policy'. Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #1079967 to the same values pr

Re: Debian Technical Committee article

Hello, On Wed 14 Aug 2024 at 06:10am -07, Jake Edge wrote: > i am always loath to add a link into a quote, since we generally do not > speak that way :) That's a good thought, thanks! -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: on the formal significance of vetoing something

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 05:04:41PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > hi & just for context, though my question is NOT about this case: > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 05:11:21PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > > [...] I note that if > > our proposed change #somebug to the Debian policy that has received six

Re: on the formal significance of vetoing something

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 10:19:08AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > I wonder if such a veto has any formal effect? > It doesn't. [..] > > IOW, anyone can veto anything, but a veto as such has no power on its > > own, right? > > Correct. The Policy Editors are responsible for judging consensus. We

Re: on the formal significance of vetoing something

Holger Levsen writes: > hi & just for context, though my question is NOT about this case: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 05:11:21PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: >> [...] I note that if our proposed change #somebug to the Debian policy >> that has received six seconds and one veto comes into effect >

Re: Debian Technical Committee article

Hi Sean, On 2024 Aug 14 at 12:41:51 +0800 Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello Jake et al., > > I am humbled by your excellent write-up of the TC talk at DebConf. [1] > Thank you! I am thinking we might add a link to the article to our > recruitment mail, especially with how effectively you discuss ho

Processed: Re: Bug#1078505: developers-reference: document corner case of debian version and rational

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > severity 1078505 wishlist Bug #1078505 [developers-reference] developers-reference: document corner case of debian version and rational Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'important' > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need

Processed: Re: developers-reference: issue with sidebar in singlehtml variant on small screens

Processing control commands: > reassign -1 src:sphinx-rtd-theme Bug #1075914 [developers-reference] developers-reference: issue with sidebar in singlehtml variant on small screens Bug reassigned from package 'developers-reference' to 'src:sphinx-rtd-theme'. No longer marked as found in versions d

Processed: Re: Bug#1075914: Acknowledgement (developers-reference: issue with sidebar in singlehtml variant on small screens)

Processing control commands: > forwarded -1 https://github.com/readthedocs/sphinx_rtd_theme/issues/880 Bug #1075914 [developers-reference] developers-reference: issue with sidebar in singlehtml variant on small screens Set Bug forwarded-to-address to 'https://github.com/readthedocs/sphinx_rtd_th

Processed: Re: Bug#1074014: encode mandatory merged-/usr into policy

Processing control commands: > tags -1 + patch Bug #1074014 [debian-policy] encode mandatory merged-/usr into policy Added tag(s) patch. -- 1074014: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1074014 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Re: Bug#1074014: encode mandatory merged-/usr into policy

Control: tags -1 + patch Editors, if tagging + patch is not appropriate, my apologies. On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 08:27:56PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > For these reasons, I propose changing section 10.1 and encoding the > avoidance of symlink vs directory conflicts into policy. To get a > discuss

Processed: Re: Bug#1074083: create .../man/man/

Processing control commands: > reassign -1 debian-policy Bug #1074083 [man-db] create .../man/man/ Bug reassigned from package 'man-db' to 'debian-policy'. No longer marked as found in versions man-db/2.12.1-2. Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #1074083 to the same values previously

Re: Why do we have both locales/ and policy/locale/ ?

gt; msgfmt --output=/dev/null --statistics $po > done > > vs > > for po in locales/ja/LC_MESSAGES/*.po; do > echo "== $po ==" > msgfmt --output=/dev/null --statistics $po > done > > In addition, re-running the above msgfmt with --check, and

Re: Why do we have both locales/ and policy/locale/ ?

ESSAGES/*.po; do echo "== $po ==" msgfmt --output=/dev/null --statistics $po done In addition, re-running the above msgfmt with --check, and also running «i18nspector **/*.po», both emit multiple things that could be fixed, or improved. Thanks, Guillem

Processed: Re: Bug#1069934: 4.9.2. The dak ls utility should mention rmadison

Processing control commands: > severity -1 wishlist Bug #1069934 [developers-reference] 4.9.2. The dak ls utility should mention rmadison Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'normal' -- 1069934: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1069934 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.

Re: single-page html of debian-policy to be revived?

On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 10:15:19AM +0100, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon 15 Apr 2024 at 09:59am GMT, Holger Levsen wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 14, 2024 at 08:43:51PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote: > >> ... but if dev-ref is already shipping both, maybe singlepage is indeed > >> usable these day

Re: single-page html of debian-policy to be revived?

Hello, On Mon 15 Apr 2024 at 09:59am GMT, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Sun, Apr 14, 2024 at 08:43:51PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote: >> ... but if dev-ref is already shipping both, maybe singlepage is indeed >> usable these days ... > > I think it is. > >> > Could the Policy Editors team check, if ever

Processed: Re: base-files: /var/run and /var/lock should not be absolute symlinks

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > reassign 1039979 debian-policy Bug #1039979 [base-files] base-files: /var/run and /var/lock should not be absolute symlinks Bug reassigned from package 'base-files' to 'debian-policy'. No longer marked as found in versions base-files/12.4 and ba

Re: base-files: /var/run and /var/lock should not be absolute symlinks

reassign 1039979 debian-policy thanks Dear Policy editors: In this bug I'm asked to make /var/run and /var/lock symlinks to be relative. Maybe it's the right thing to do, but last time I tried to do that, this is what happened: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=690345 [ Summar

Re: single-page html of debian-policy to be revived?

On Sun, Apr 14, 2024 at 08:43:51PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote: > ... but if dev-ref is already shipping both, maybe singlepage is indeed > usable these days ... I think it is. > > Could the Policy Editors team check, if everything is fine now, and if > > this should be published again? > > At lea

Re: single-page html of debian-policy to be revived?

Hello, On Sun 14 Apr 2024 at 01:57pm +02, Holger Wansing wrote: > 1. > Currently, the package does not ship this version. So this would have to > be re-added there. The changelog for 4.2.0.0 says * Stop installing policy-1.html because Sphinx's singlehtml output is too bu

Re: Bug#872944: #872944 www.debian.org: Remove JavaScript from Policy Manual published on web mirrors

Hello, On Thu 11 Apr 2024 at 08:32am GMT, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 09:18:06AM +0200, Thomas Lange wrote: >> A single page html may be an additional option but there's already the >> single page txt version and the PDF. That's sufficient and I see no >> need in providing more

Re: Bug#872944: #872944 www.debian.org: Remove JavaScript from Policy Manual published on web mirrors

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 09:18:06AM +0200, Thomas Lange wrote: > A single page html may be an additional option but there's already the > single page txt version and the PDF. That's sufficient and I see no > need in providing more formats of this manual. > > Therefore we can close this and I will c

Re: Bug#872944: #872944 www.debian.org: Remove JavaScript from Policy Manual published on web mirrors

Currently we have a working solution using js and providing multi page html. That's a good solution which is already available. > I did not go deeper into this scenario, I just found > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=877337 > which includes a forward-backword-forwar

Re: #872944 www.debian.org: Remove JavaScript from Policy Manual published on web mirrors

Hi, Bill Allombert wrote (Wed, 10 Apr 2024 22:24:20 +0200): > On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 09:33:50PM +0200, Holger Wansing wrote: > > Hello www team and debian-policy editor team, > > > > Note: apparently we have no alternative beside js, if we want full-text > > search for html output (single-pag

Re: Bug#872944: #872944 www.debian.org: Remove JavaScript from Policy Manual published on web mirrors

> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:33:50 +0200, Holger Wansing > said: > The second javascript functionality is the full-text search. > Please note, that I made use of javascript by intend, despite of this bug > requesting to remove all js functionality. Hi holger, in the past we

Re: #872944 www.debian.org: Remove JavaScript from Policy Manual published on web mirrors

Hello www team and debian-policy editor team, in-line with activating the new html theme on our website I also worked on the javascript front: to make the html theme work on small screens (smartphones) the readthedocs.org theme relies on javascript functionality, to display a sidebar with the ta

Re: Bug#1067079: Clarify that policy on a technology does not implicitly mandate that technology

Hello, On Tue 02 Apr 2024 at 04:18pm +01, Josh Triplett wrote: > Sean Whitton wrote: >> On Tue 26 Mar 2024 at 10:11am -06, Sam Hartman wrote: >> > I tend to agree with Sean that your rationale is not convincing. >> > It sounds like you want to use policy as a stick to hit people >> > over the he

Re: Bug#1067079: Clarify that policy on a technology does not implicitly mandate that technology

Josh Triplett writes: > Nonetheless, if the Policy editors are opposed to documenting something > despite it being collectively known to be the case, and do not feel that > any possible wording change would change that position, then I will not > push for it further. I have already suggested a w

Re: Bug#1067079: Clarify that policy on a technology does not implicitly mandate that technology

Sean Whitton wrote: > On Tue 26 Mar 2024 at 10:11am -06, Sam Hartman wrote: > > I tend to agree with Sean that your rationale is not convincing. > > It sounds like you want to use policy as a stick to hit people > > over the head and say "policy is not a stick." > > This was basically my concern.

Re: Move "ITP" from Wiki into the Dev Ref

Dear Andrey, you make it hard. On 2024-03-29 16:16 Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote: > Can you please open it? It's a devref section about ITP. I know. I opened it. What I need is the opinion or better a decision and an action of an experience Debian person if the TODO ("! this page should be merged

Re: Move "ITP" from Wiki into the Dev Ref

Dear Andrey, thanks for the reply. What is the answer? It was just a link. Kind Christian On 2024-03-29 15:05 Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 09:34:27AM +, c.bu...@posteo.jp wrote: > > Dear Team, > > > > My apologize for contacting you this way. I couldn't find an > >

Re: Move "ITP" from Wiki into the Dev Ref

On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 11:14:27AM +, c.bu...@posteo.jp wrote: > Dear Andrey, > > thanks for the reply. What is the answer? It was just a link. Can you please open it? It's a devref section about ITP. > On 2024-03-29 15:05 Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 09:34:27AM +0

Re: Move "ITP" from Wiki into the Dev Ref

On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 09:34:27AM +, c.bu...@posteo.jp wrote: > Dear Team, > > My apologize for contacting you this way. I couldn't find an > appropriate mailing list. > > I would like to point you to an wiki related bug ticket in context of > your Developers Reference. > >

Re: Bug#945269: debian-policy: packages should use tmpfiles.d(5) to create directories below /var

Sean Whitton wrote: > On Sun 17 Sep 2023 at 10:52am -07, Russ Allbery wrote: > > So far as I can tell, the only important part is that the directory > > be registered in tmpfiles.d (or a service unit) so that it can be > > recreated when needed. > > Something which I don't think has been mentioned

Processed: Re: Bug#915583: about html_static_path

Processing control commands: > tag -1 + pending Bug #915583 [debian-policy] debian-policy: More attractive sphinx theme, please Added tag(s) pending. -- 915583: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=915583 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Processed: Re: Bug#968226: Move documentation of Build-Depends alternative selection out of footnote

Processing control commands: > tag -1 + pending Bug #968226 [debian-policy] Move documentation of Build-Depends alternative selection out of footnote Added tag(s) pending. -- 968226: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=968226 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.or

Processed: Re: Bug#1058589: developers-reference: please mention urgency=critical/emergency for completeness

Processing control commands: > reopen -1 Bug #1058589 {Done: Holger Levsen } [src:developers-reference] developers-reference: please mention urgency=critical/emergency for completeness Bug reopened Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #1058589 to the same values previously set > reas

Processed: Re: Bug#1053305 Fw: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ examples suffer escape damage

Processing control commands: > tags -1 + patch Bug #1053305 [debian-policy] Fw: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ examples suffer escape damage Added tag(s) patch. -- 1053305: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1053305 Debian Bug Tracking System

Re: Does iproute2 moving config files to /usr/lib violate section 10.7.2?

On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 at 02:03:52 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > If the files are intended to be modified "in place" by the > system admin, we call them configuration files (and we try hard > to put them in /etc). If they are not intended to be modified by > the system admin, we don't call them config

Re: Does iproute2 moving config files to /usr/lib violate section 10.7.2?

On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 12:12:18AM +0200, Daniel Gröber wrote: > Sam, Russ, Bill, > > Thanks for your input. To be quite frank I still don't see how the > interpretation of allowing configuration files outside of /etc can be > supported based on the policy text. > > Ultimately I'm just concerned

Re: Bug#915583: debian sphinx styling: second attempt

RL writes: > http://stephane.yaal.fr/tmp/release-notes/issues.html#grub-no-longer-runs-os-prober-by-default > the '# dpkg-reconfigure ' is shown as a shell-comment, but is > meant to be a command-to-run-as-root (i remember this being discussed on > the previous version on the release-notes list,

Re: Bug#915583: debian sphinx styling: second attempt

Stéphane Blondon writes: > - for (draft sphinx) release-notes: > http://stephane.yaal.fr/tmp/release-notes/ > > What do you think about it? commenting on the release-notes, but i expect applies to policy too: looks awesome - imo it is now even better-looking than the docbook verison in the t

Re: Does iproute2 moving config files to /usr/lib violate section 10.7.2?

El 17/9/23 a las 0:12, Daniel Gröber escribió: Sam, Russ, Bill, Thanks for your input. To be quite frank I still don't see how the interpretation of allowing configuration files outside of /etc can be supported based on the policy text. Hello. I apologize for not having read the discussion in

Re: Does iproute2 moving config files to /usr/lib violate section 10.7.2?

Daniel Gröber writes: > Ultimately I'm just concerned about the UX aspects of admins suddenly > having to go hunting for config files all over their system when > packages start implementing this config-in-/usr business en mass. I think the expectation is that you read the documentation of the p

Re: Does iproute2 moving config files to /usr/lib violate section 10.7.2?

Sam, Russ, Bill, Thanks for your input. To be quite frank I still don't see how the interpretation of allowing configuration files outside of /etc can be supported based on the policy text. Ultimately I'm just concerned about the UX aspects of admins suddenly having to go hunting for config files

Processed: Re: Bug#1051371: Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters

Processing control commands: > unblock 1051371 by 1050001 Bug #1051371 [debian-policy] Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters 1051371 was not blocked by any bugs. 1051371 was not blocking any bugs. Removed blocking bug(s) of 1051371: 1050001 -- 1051371: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bug

Processed: Re: Bug#1051371: Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters

Processing control commands: > unblock 1051371 by 1050001 Bug #1051371 [debian-policy] Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters 1051371 was blocked by: 1050001 1051371 was not blocking any bugs. Removed blocking bug(s) of 1051371: 1050001 -- 1050001: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrepor

Re: Does iproute2 moving config files to /usr/lib violate section 10.7.2?

On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 04:01:05PM +0200, Daniel Gröber wrote: > Hello debian-policy, > > iproute2 has moved it's config files that were traditionally at > /etc/iproute2 to /usr/lib/iproute2 due to an upstream change. I've tried to > convince the maintainer(s) that this is a bad idea in Bug#105157

Re: Does iproute2 moving config files to /usr/lib violate section 10.7.2?

Daniel Gröber writes: >> Any configuration files created or used by your package must reside >> in /etc. > Pretty clear cut in my reading, however this was promptly shot down by > Bastian with the justification: Configuration file has a very specific meaning in Policy: it's a file that the loc

Re: Does iproute2 moving config files to /usr/lib violate section 10.7.2?

> "Daniel" == Daniel Gröber writes: >> Any configuration files created or used by your package must >> reside in /etc. It's fine for packages to store defaults outside of /etc. But that 's only true if you can override those defaults by placing a file in /etc.

Processed: Re: Bug#1051371: Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters

Processing control commands: > block 1051371 by 1050001 Bug #1051371 [debian-policy] Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters 1051371 was blocked by: 1050001 1051371 was not blocking any bugs. Ignoring request to alter blocking bugs of bug #1051371 to the same blocks previously set -- 1051

Processed: Re: Bug#1051371: Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters

Processing control commands: > block 1051371 by 1050001 Bug #1051371 [debian-policy] Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters 1051371 was not blocked by any bugs. 1051371 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 1051371: 1050001 -- 1050001: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrepo

Processed: Re: Bug#1051371: Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters

Processing control commands: > retitle -1 Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters Bug #1051371 [debian-policy] debian-policy: stop referring to specific paths in scripts shebang examples Changed Bug title to 'Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters' from 'debian-policy: stop referrin

Re: Bug#1051371: debian-policy: stop referring to legacy filesystem paths for script interpreters

I'm going to take this reply out of the bug to just the Policy list, since this really isn't part of the bug discussion and folks trying to understand the bug shouldn't need to read through it. I should have done that with my original message. I'm going to leave the subject line the same so that

Processed: Re: Bug#872587: Document the Protected field

Processing control commands: > retitle -1 Document the Protected field Bug #872587 [debian-policy] debian-policy: please document "Important: yes" Changed Bug title to 'Document the Protected field' from 'debian-policy: please document "Important: yes"'. -- 872587: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-b

Bug#991984: closed by Russ Allbery (Re: Bug#991984: Please document minimal environment variable needed for sensible-utils)

Please remove the following email address: e.little...@gmail.com On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 4:21 AM Bastien Roucariès wrote: > Le dimanche 10 septembre 2023, 04:33:06 UTC Debian Bug Tracking System a > écrit : > > This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report > > which was filed agai

Bug#991984: closed by Russ Allbery (Re: Bug#991984: Please document minimal environment variable needed for sensible-utils)

Le dimanche 10 septembre 2023, 04:33:06 UTC Debian Bug Tracking System a écrit : > This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report > which was filed against the debian-policy package: > > #991984: Please document minimal environment variable needed for > sensible-utils > > It has bee

Processed: Re: Bug#1031403: debian-policy: missing quotes in sh script example in file policy/ap-pkg-diversions

Processing control commands: > tags -1 pending Bug #1031403 [debian-policy] debian-policy: missing quotes in sh script example in file policy/ap-pkg-diversions Added tag(s) pending. -- 1031403: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1031403 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bu

Processed: Re: Bug#1051371: debian-policy: stop referring to legacy filesystem paths for script interpreters

Processing control commands: > retitle -1 debian-policy: stop referring to specific paths in scripts shebang > examples Bug #1051371 [debian-policy] debian-policy: stop referring to legacy filesystem paths for script interpreters Changed Bug title to 'debian-policy: stop referring to specific pa

Re: [RFC] Extending project standards to services linked through Vcs-*

Dominik George writes: > On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 09:48:26AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> This implies that Salsa is happy to create accounts for people under >> the age of 13, since the implicit statement here is that Debian's own >> Git hosting infrastructure is less excluding than GitHub. >>

Processed: Re: Bug#1041464: debian-policy: make Uploaders field optional for team-maintained packages

Processing control commands: > forcemerge 798476 1041464 Bug #798476 [debian-policy] debian-policy: don't require Uploaders Bug #1041464 [debian-policy] debian-policy: make Uploaders field optional for team-maintained packages Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'normal' 1041464 was not blocked by an

Bug#1040914: dev-ref: update best practices around security (Re: Securing Debian Manual too old?)

package: developers-reference x-debbugs-cc: debian-secur...@lists.debian.org hi, On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 10:46:20PM +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > > I found the Securing Debian Manual > > (https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-manual/index.en.html). > > This version is from 2017.

Re: Bug#945269: debian-policy: packages should use tmpfiles.d(5) to create directories below /var

Some grammer thoughts. Especially i suggest avoiding the word 'integrate' wherever possible Luca Boccassi writes: > +Service Directories > + > +Init systems other than ``systemd`` should allow providing the same "allow providing" should be "provide" (or "support"? or "allow [who] to [do what

Re: 6.1.3. Multiple binary packages question

On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 at 23:18:24 +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 11:19:06PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > The drawback of dh_install is that it requires more diskspace to build than > > dh_movefiles but is less error prone. > > So unless your package is very large, it is saf

Re: 6.1.3. Multiple binary packages question

On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 11:19:06PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 09:21:00PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 09:29:04AM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > > "Kristian" == Kristian Penno writes: > > > Kristian> source package is referenced. The

Re: 6.1.3. Multiple binary packages question

On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 09:21:00PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 09:29:04AM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > "Kristian" == Kristian Penno writes: > > Kristian> source package is referenced. The lyx source package uses > > Kristian> some shell commands to move fi

Re: 6.1.3. Multiple binary packages question

On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 09:29:04AM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Kristian" == Kristian Penno writes: > Kristian> source package is referenced. The lyx source package uses > Kristian> some shell commands to move files around in the rules > Kristian> file. Is this preferred to usi

Re: Bug#1035733: debian -policy: packages must not use dpkg-divert to override default systemd configuraton files

On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 12:33:52PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 at 12:25, Dominik George wrote: > > > > > The whole project is moving toward git and Salsa > > > > Sorry for the noise, but as you are clearly misattributing this to me (I am > > part of the project, so "the whole

Re: nocheck (don't run) vs nodoc (don't build)

> "Sean" == Sean Whitton writes: Sean> Hello, Sean> On Wed 26 Apr 2023 at 04:48PM -06, Sam Hartman wrote: >> I guess that's consistent with RFC 2119. And RFC 2119 SHOULD >> means that the requirement is RECOMMENDED, and an implementation >> that does not follow the SHOUL

Re: nocheck (don't run) vs nodoc (don't build)

Hello, On Wed 26 Apr 2023 at 04:48PM -06, Sam Hartman wrote: > I guess that's consistent with RFC 2119. > And RFC 2119 SHOULD means that the requirement is RECOMMENDED, and an > implementation that does not follow the SHOULD needs to have a reason > for not following the recommendation. Just to

Re: Bug #1013195: base-files: Please add AGPL-3 license

Hello, On Wed 26 Apr 2023 at 11:53AM -07, Russ Allbery wrote: > Robert Ernst writes: > >> Also I kindly remark my still open questions regarding: > >> - Is there enough manpower in the debian policy team? > > No, not really. I think that we have enough editorial manpower. It's relatively rare

Re: nocheck (don't run) vs nodoc (don't build)

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 at 16:48:43 -0600, Sam Hartman wrote: > Simon> - the nocheck option SHOULD NOT alter the contents of any > Simon> binary package > > I agree this is true--possibly even as a MUST--for the nocheck build > profile, but > I think DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS are allowed to modify the con

Re: nocheck (don't run) vs nodoc (don't build)

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 at 23:24:58 +0200, Christian Kastner wrote: > On 2023-04-26 20:42, Russ Allbery wrote: > > It's just > > less common (although certainly not unheard of) for test suites to have > > test-suite-only build dependencies (as opposed to test-only runtime > > dependencies, which are ve

Re: nocheck (don't run) vs nodoc (don't build)

> "Simon" == Simon McVittie writes: Simon> On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 at 18:59:46 +0200, Christian Kastner wrote: >> Policy 4.9.1 states that (emphases mine): * "[nocheck] says not >> to *run* any build-time test suite" * "[nodoc] says to skip any >> *build* steps" >> >> My

Re: nocheck (don't run) vs nodoc (don't build)

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 at 18:59:46 +0200, Christian Kastner wrote: > Policy 4.9.1 states that (emphases mine): > * "[nocheck] says not to *run* any build-time test suite" > * "[nodoc] says to skip any *build* steps" > > My reading with regards to 'nocheck' was that where tests were available > an

Re: nocheck (don't run) vs nodoc (don't build)

Hi Russ, thanks for the fast reply! On 2023-04-26 20:42, Russ Allbery wrote: > Christian Kastner writes: >> I thought this line of reasoning was sound, but then I remembered the >> 'nodoc' tag and now I am no longer sure. Maybe I'm taking the 'nocheck' >> description too literally. > > I think

Re: Bug #1013195: base-files: Please add AGPL-3 license

Robert Ernst writes: > Also I kindly remark my still open questions regarding: > - Is there enough manpower in the debian policy team? No, not really. > - Who is part of the debian policy team besides of the two delegates >     - Russ Allbery (rra) >     - Sean Whitton (spwhitton) Cur

Re: nocheck (don't run) vs nodoc (don't build)

Christian Kastner writes: > Policy 4.9.1 states that (emphases mine): > * "[nocheck] says not to *run* any build-time test suite" > * "[nodoc] says to skip any *build* steps" > My reading with regards to 'nocheck' was that where tests were available > and needed to be built, then they should

Re: Bug #1013195: base-files: Please add AGPL-3 license

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 10:49:32AM +, Robert Ernst wrote: > Hello Bill, > > thank you for the swift reply! > > Excuse me if I do err, but even after consulting others, this bug seems to > be open. > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1013195 > > And from an uninitiated perspec

Re: Bug #1013195: base-files: Please add AGPL-3 license

Hello Bill, what speaks against closing the bug, independent of being a duplicate? This whole thread and conversation plus the time spent on it would not have been necessary if it would just have been closed. Also I kindly remark my still open questions regarding: - Is there enough manpower i

Re: Bug #1013195: base-files: Please add AGPL-3 license

Hello Bill, thank you for the swift reply! Excuse me if I do err, but even after consulting others, this bug seems to be open. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1013195 And from an uninitiated perspective it seems like the policy team never looked at this bug. So the best sol

Re: Bug #1013195: base-files: Please add AGPL-3 license

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 09:03:14AM +, Robert Ernst wrote: > Hello, > > I found this bug because I was asking myself why we don't include more > licenses in the /usr/share/common-licenses/ folder. > While I am open to have the big topic (of why we don't just put all licenses > know to man in ev

menu-policy still there and not-deprecated (Re: Bug#975631: debian-policy: window manager: remove reference to Debian menu)

hi, someone on irc wondered about icons and Debian packages so I noticed https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/menu-policy/ prominently linked from https://www.debian.org/doc/devel-manuals#policy But then I though the menu system has been deprecated as eg noted in #975631: On Tue, Nov 24,

Re: 6.1.3. Multiple binary packages question

> "Kristian" == Kristian Penno writes: Kristian> source package is referenced. The lyx source package uses Kristian> some shell commands to move files around in the rules Kristian> file. Is this preferred to using debhelper Kristian> .install files? No. If .install files wo

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >