Processed: locales,gosa-dev: install program with same name (update-locale)

Processing control commands: > block 1075856 by -1 Bug #1075856 [debian-policy] Clarify filename conflicts for programs 1075856 was blocked by: 1076215 1076216 1075856 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 1075856: 1076217 -- 1075856: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?b

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.

Bug#934527: update on appendix situation

hi, some updates on this bug: - the issue seems to have nothing to do with the single page html format, it's also present in the multi page html version, and the cause seems to be https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/issues/6614 - the issue is visible annoying in the generated package descrip

Bug#823256: marked as done (debian-policy: Update maintscript arguments with dpkg >= 1.18.5)

Your message dated Sat, 17 Dec 2022 03:04:04 + with message-id and subject line Bug#823256: fixed in debian-policy 4.6.2.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #823256, regarding debian-policy: Update maintscript arguments with dpkg >= 1.18.5 to be marked as done. This means that you claim t

Bug#823256: debian-policy: Update maintscript arguments with dpkg >= 1.18.5

Russ Allbery writes: > Here is a patch that I believe implements that, and which I think is > ready for seconds. Thanks for the review, both. This has now been applied for the next release. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)

Bug#823256: debian-policy: Update maintscript arguments with dpkg >= 1.18.5

022 18:49:04 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH] new-version now passed to more maintainer scripts > > Starting with dpkg 1.18.5, several maintainer script actions > involving a new package version get that version as an argument > after the old version. Update Policy's maintainer script > d

Bug#823256: debian-policy: Update maintscript arguments with dpkg >= 1.18.5

Hello, On Tue 20 Sep 2022 at 06:52PM -07, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Starting with dpkg 1.18.5, several maintainer script actions > involving a new package version get that version as an argument > after the old version. Update Policy's maintainer script > documentation accordin

Bug#823256: debian-policy: Update maintscript arguments with dpkg >= 1.18.5

ed and discussed some time ago in the debian-dpkg mailing > list. > The list of the actions and their new arguments, from the dpkg changelog > entry are: > - failed-upgrade > - abort-install > - abort-upgrade > - install > - upgrade > - f

Bug#424879: marked as done (developers-reference: Document best practise for update-alternatives)

Your message dated Sat, 10 Sep 2022 13:31:51 +0100 with message-id and subject line Closing requests for updates included in 11.5 has caused the Debian Bug report #101870, regarding developers-reference: Document best practise for update-alternatives to be marked as done. This means that you

Bug#839885: marked as done (developers-reference: reintroducing packages: update security issue metadata)

Your message dated Sun, 17 Feb 2019 13:34:11 + with message-id and subject line Bug#839885: fixed in developers-reference 3.4.23 has caused the Debian Bug report #839885, regarding developers-reference: reintroducing packages: update security issue metadata to be marked as done. This means

Bug#843966: developers-reference-fr: translation update

Am 18. November 2018 14:38:02 GMT+02:00 schrieb Holger Wansing : >Hi Jean-Paul and Tobias, (...) >@Tobias: maybe you received an answer from Jean-Paul via PM? No, I did not get a response > > >Holger

Processed: Re: developers-reference-fr: translation update

Processing control commands: > tags -1 + pending Bug #843966 [developers-reference-fr] developers-reference-fr: translation update Added tag(s) pending. -- 843966: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=843966 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#843966: developers-reference-fr: translation update

Control: tags -1 + pending Holger Wansing wrote: > On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 13:38:02 +0100 Holger Wansing > wrote: > > Hi Jean-Paul and Tobias, > > > > On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 18:51:49 +0200 Tobias Frost wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I was a bit bug-triaging on developers-reference and found your pat

Bug#843966: developers-reference-fr: translation update

Hi Jean-Paul and Tobias, On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 18:51:49 +0200 Tobias Frost wrote: > Hi, > > I was a bit bug-triaging on developers-reference and found your patch. > It seems that your patch has not been applied, but still the french > translation seems to have advanced on in the pacakge. > I unfor

Bug#913295: marked as done (debian-policy: Update location of example init.d script)

Your message dated Sat, 17 Nov 2018 17:04:28 + with message-id and subject line Bug#913295: fixed in debian-policy 4.2.1.5 has caused the Debian Bug report #913295, regarding debian-policy: Update location of example init.d script to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

Bug#913295: debian-policy: Update location of example init.d script

control: tag -1 +pending Hello, On Thu 15 Nov 2018 at 10:37AM GMT, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: > [2018-11-12 12:53] Sean Whitton >> > Sorry, I do not understand. Why? Currently, there is no such thing as >> > `/usr/share/doc/initscripts/examples'. >> >> The first message in #913154 suggests moving /e

Processed: Re: Bug#913295: debian-policy: Update location of example init.d script

Processing control commands: > tag -1 +pending Bug #913295 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Update location of example init.d script Added tag(s) pending. -- 913295: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=913295 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#913295: debian-policy: Update location of example init.d script

[2018-11-12 12:53] Sean Whitton > > Sorry, I do not understand. Why? Currently, there is no such thing as > > `/usr/share/doc/initscripts/examples'. > > The first message in #913154 suggests moving /etc/init.d/skeleton into > /usr/share/doc/initscripts/examples. And /etc/init.d/skeleton is more

Bug#913295: debian-policy: Update location of example init.d script

Hello, On Sun 11 Nov 2018 at 09:08PM GMT, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: > [2018-11-10 17:02] Sean Whitton >> >> Reading #913154, I note that the example in init-d-script(5) is shorter >> than the old file /etc/init.d/skeleton. So shouldn't Policy refer to >> the new file in /usr/share/doc/initscripts/e

Bug#913295: debian-policy: Update location of example init.d script

[2018-11-10 17:02] Sean Whitton > Hello Dmitry, > > On Fri 09 Nov 2018 at 08:17AM GMT, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: > > > Examples on which you can base your systemd integration on is available in > > the man page systemd.unit(8). An example on which you can base your > > -``/etc/init.d`` scripts i

Bug#913295: debian-policy: Update location of example init.d script

Sean Whitton writes: > On Fri 09 Nov 2018 at 05:39PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Thank you! Seconded. > This change seems to be purely informative; could you say why you think > it needs seconding, please? Oh, sorry, I didn't even double-check whether there was normative language, just made

Bug#913295: debian-policy: Update location of example init.d script

Hello, On Fri 09 Nov 2018 at 05:39PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Thank you! Seconded. This change seems to be purely informative; could you say why you think it needs seconding, please? -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Bug#913295: debian-policy: Update location of example init.d script

Hello Dmitry, On Fri 09 Nov 2018 at 08:17AM GMT, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: > Examples on which you can base your systemd integration on is available in > the man page systemd.unit(8). An example on which you can base your > -``/etc/init.d`` scripts is found in ``/etc/init.d/skeleton``. > +``/etc/in

Bug#913295: debian-policy: Update location of example init.d script

On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 08:17:42AM +, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: > From e3457ee94e7293dbd59c9651d82d0c07fda50b33 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Dmitry Bogatov > Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 08:02:01 + > Subject: [PATCH] Update information about example init.d script > > According

Bug#913295: debian-policy: Update location of example init.d script

Dmitry Bogatov writes: > According to #913154, there is consensus, that `/etc/init.d/skeleton' is > not suitable location for example init.d script, and actually duplicates > information, provided by init-d-script(5) manpage. > I attach tiny patch, that changes Policy. Thank you! Seconded. --

Bug#913295: debian-policy: Update location of example init.d script

olicy. >From e3457ee94e7293dbd59c9651d82d0c07fda50b33 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dmitry Bogatov Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 08:02:01 + Subject: [PATCH] Update information about example init.d script According to #913154, there is consensus, that `/etc/init.d/skeleton' is not suitable

Processed: Re: Update and document criteria for inclusion in /usr/share/common-licenses

Processing control commands: > block 910548 by -1 Bug #910548 [base-files] base-files - please consider adding /usr/share/common-licenses/Unicode-Data 910548 was not blocked by any bugs. 910548 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 910548: 885698 -- 885698: https://bugs.debian.org

Bug#885698: Update and document criteria for inclusion in /usr/share/common-licenses

Control: block 910548 by -1 Blocking my own bug report with this one, which I just noticed. I submitted bug #910548 previously against the base-files package: "base-files - please consider adding /usr/share/common-licenses/Unicode-Data". I had formatted the copyright and license information for

Re: Update URL for D-I Internals manual

Hello, On Wed 10 Oct 2018 at 12:14PM +0200, Holger Wansing wrote: > after the Alioth shutdown, the D-I Internals manual is now available again > at dillon under https://d-i.debian.org/doc/internals/ > > > You might want to apply the attached patch, to update this in the pol

Update URL for D-I Internals manual

[Please CC me on replies, I'm not subscribed to this list] Hi, after the Alioth shutdown, the D-I Internals manual is now available again at dillon under https://d-i.debian.org/doc/internals/ You might want to apply the attached patch, to update this in the policy. Regards H

Processed: update bug statuses

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > limit source debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'source' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to 'source':'debian-policy' > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org

Bug#864615: marked as done (please update version of posix standard for scripts (section 10.4))

Your message dated Wed, 04 Jul 2018 11:05:28 + with message-id and subject line Bug#864615: fixed in debian-policy 4.1.5.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #864615, regarding please update version of posix standard for scripts (section 10.4) to be marked as done. This means that you claim

Bug#864615: please update version of posix standard for scripts (section 10.4)

Simon. Again, all that the patch > does is: Sorry for the delay! Of course, I second the following text. > - replace the string "SUSv3" with "POSIX.1-2017" wherever it appears > - update the footnote which gives the download URI for the standard > > > or p

Bug#864615: please update version of posix standard for scripts (section 10.4)

On 06/15/2018 02:06 PM, Sean Whitton wrote: > Patch: > >> diff --git a/policy/ch-files.rst b/policy/ch-files.rst >> index 90ae58a..f31a3b4 100644 >> --- a/policy/ch-files.rst >> +++ b/policy/ch-files.rst >> @@ -203,9 +203,9 @@ may instead be easier to check the exit status of >> commands directly

Bug#864615: please update version of posix standard for scripts (section 10.4)

do you see other advantages? (Note that I have seconded the version that says POSIX.1-2017; I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good here.) Having explicit control over the version of the standard we target doesn't seem to have brought us any particular benefits, and it has

Bug#864615: please update version of posix standard for scripts (section 10.4)

gt; instead, Thank you for this. Let's use POSIX.1-2017 rather than relying on the download filenames. Please find a revised patch below; hopefully Gunnar will renew his second, and perhaps you'll second too, Simon. Again, all that the patch does is: - replace the string "SUSv3&

Bug#864615: please update version of posix standard for scripts (section 10.4)

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 15:28:04 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14 2017, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > The 2016 edition is Technical Corrigendum 2. I'm not sure that it's > > conventional to use versioning such as 4.2 in such cases, however. I'd > > expect it to be referred to as SUSv4, SUSv4

Processed: Update submitter

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > submitter 819399 ! Bug #819399 {Done: Eric Dorland } [opensc] opensc: Enable DNIe UI Changed Bug submitter to 'javier--ryqcowxjkcug7xjmmivj70vapc5...@jasp.net' from 'javier--7c8frosbhwv6hrgym4mlhjbycgp...@jasp.net'. > submitter 830524 ! Bug #830

Bug#892142: marked as done (debian-policy: update example to use default-mta instead of exim)

Your message dated Thu, 05 Apr 2018 17:20:05 + with message-id and subject line Bug#892142: fixed in debian-policy 4.1.4.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #892142, regarding debian-policy: update example to use default-mta instead of exim to be marked as done. This means that you claim that

Bug#892142: debian-policy: update example to use default-mta instead of exim

On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 05:12:16PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Thanks! This is non-normative, so a policy editor can just make the > change. I'll second it nonetheless :) > How about this patch? It should be possible to apply by downloading > this message as an mbox and using "git am --scis

[developers-reference] 01/01: Update section about package tracker

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. hertzog pushed a commit to branch master in repository developers-reference. commit 9a9bdb951bfca5fbeec5ed6eaceced04ffe336b1 Author: Raphaël Hertzog Date: Thu Mar 15 00:51:07 2018 +0100 Update section about package

Bug#892142: debian-policy: update example to use default-mta instead of exim

control: tag -1 +pending Hello, On Mon, Mar 05 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > This is non-normative, so a policy editor can just make the change. Indeed. > How about this patch? It should be possible to apply by downloading > this message as an mbox and using "git am --scissors mbox-file". O

Processed: Re: Bug#892142: debian-policy: update example to use default-mta instead of exim

Processing control commands: > tag -1 +pending Bug #892142 [debian-policy] debian-policy: update example to use default-mta instead of exim Added tag(s) pending. -- 892142: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=892142 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org w

Bug#892142: debian-policy: update example to use default-mta instead of exim

On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 17:12 -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > How about this patch? Looks good to me. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Bug#892142: debian-policy: update example to use default-mta instead of exim

tags 892142 + patch quit Hi, Paul Wise wrote: > In Policy 7.1. Syntax of relationship fields, there is an example: > >For example, a list of dependencies might appear as: > >Package: mutt >Version: 1.3.17-1 >Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.1), exim | mail-transport-agent > > I would like

Processed: Re: debian-policy: update example to use default-mta instead of exim

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tags 892142 + patch Bug #892142 [debian-policy] debian-policy: update example to use default-mta instead of exim Added tag(s) patch. > quit Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 892142: https://bugs.debi

Bug#892142: debian-policy: update example to use default-mta instead of exim

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.1.3.0 Severity: minor In Policy 7.1. Syntax of relationship fields, there is an example: For example, a list of dependencies might appear as: Package: mutt Version: 1.3.17-1 Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.1), exim | mail-transport-agent I would like to sugg

Bug#864615: please update version of posix standard for scripts (section 10.4)

v4 (2016 edition)" wherever it > appears > - reflow paragraphs where necessary I second your patch; it makes sense to do this simple update. Quoting it in full just to make _what_ I'm seconding explicit. > For the reasons explained in my previous e-mail, I think it's reaso

Processed: Update and document criteria for inclusion in /usr/share/common-licenses

Processing control commands: > block 795402 by -1 Bug #795402 [debian-policy] base-files: Please add Creative Commons license texts Bug #883968 [debian-policy] debian-policy: please add CC-BY-SA-3.0 to common licenses Bug #883969 [debian-policy] debian-policy: please add CC-BY-SA-4.0 to common

Bug#885698: Update and document criteria for inclusion in /usr/share/common-licenses

Package: debian-policy Severity: important X-debbugs-cc: a...@debian.org Control: block 795402 by -1 Control: block 883966 by -1 Control: block 884223 by -1 Control: block 884226 by -1 Control: block 884227 by -1 Control: block 884228 by -1 User: debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Usertags: normativ

Bug#810381: marked as done (Update wording of 5.6.26 VCS-* fields to recommend encryption)

Your message dated Wed, 27 Dec 2017 22:48:45 + with message-id and subject line Bug#810381: fixed in debian-policy 4.1.3.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #810381, regarding Update wording of 5.6.26 VCS-* fields to recommend encryption to be marked as done. This means that you claim that

Processed: Re: Bug#810381: debian-policy: Update wording of 5.6.26 VCS-* fields to reflect the need for security

Processing control commands: > tags -1 = pending Bug #810381 [debian-policy] Update wording of 5.6.26 VCS-* fields to recommend encryption Added tag(s) pending. -- 810381: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=810381 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org w

Bug#810381: debian-policy: Update wording of 5.6.26 VCS-* fields to reflect the need for security

Control: tags -1 = pending Holger Levsen writes: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:20:39PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst >> +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst >> @@ -962,6 +962,10 @@ repository where the Debian source package is developed. >> >> More than one d

Bug#877674: marked as done ([debian-policy] update links to the pdf and other formats of the documentation)

Your message dated Thu, 30 Nov 2017 22:49:07 + with message-id and subject line Bug#877674: fixed in debian-policy 4.1.2.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #877674, regarding [debian-policy] update links to the pdf and other formats of the documentation to be marked as done. This means that

[developers-reference] 05/07: Just update release date

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. henrich pushed a commit to branch master in repository developers-reference. commit 04b7a321d86be9c2a7bbfda32851734b298f024f Author: Hideki Yamane Date: Sat Oct 28 20:46:28 2017 +0900 Just update release date --- debian

[developers-reference] 07/07: just update wordwrap

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. henrich pushed a commit to branch master in repository developers-reference. commit ee6157dc988b1212d01110c1775bbb6fde839ede Author: Hideki Yamane Date: Sat Oct 28 21:01:31 2017 +0900 just update wordwrap --- po4a/po

Bug#877674: [debian-policy] update links to the pdf and other formats of the documentation

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 09:08:01AM +0200, Laura Arjona Reina wrote: > From 044e61f437e74fad6ce7e7d19b52419402c53881 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Laura Arjona Reina > Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 08:32:38 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] update the links to the other formats of the d

Bug#864615: please update version of posix standard for scripts (section 10.4)

control: tag -1 -moreinfo +patch Hello, On Sat, Oct 14 2017, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > The 2016 edition is Technical Corrigendum 2. I'm not sure that it's > conventional to use versioning such as 4.2 in such cases, however. I'd > expect it to be referred to as SUSv4, SUSv4TC2, or SUSv4 2016 editi

Processed: Re: Bug#864615: please update version of posix standard for scripts (section 10.4)

Processing control commands: > tag -1 -moreinfo +patch Bug #864615 [debian-policy] please update version of posix standard for scripts (section 10.4) Removed tag(s) moreinfo. Bug #864615 [debian-policy] please update version of posix standard for scripts (section 10.4) Added tag(s) pa

Bug#864615: please update version of posix standard for scripts (section 10.4)

On Sat, 2017-10-14 at 11:30 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > control: tag -1 +moreinfo > > Hello Ralf, > > On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 06:51:49PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote: > > section 10.4 says: > > > >   Scripts may assume that /bin/sh implements the SUSv3 Shell > > Command > >   Language ... > > > >

Processed: Re: Bug#864615: please update version of posix standard for scripts (section 10.4)

Processing control commands: > tag -1 +moreinfo Bug #864615 [debian-policy] please update version of posix standard for scripts (section 10.4) Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 864615: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=864615 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.

Bug#864615: please update version of posix standard for scripts (section 10.4)

lem Jover wrote: > On Sun, 2017-06-11 at 20:46:23 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Before doing that, we have to check whether all the relevant packages > > are compliant with this update. > > Well, I don't all of our current shell packages are even compliant with > the

Bug#877674: [debian-policy] update links to the pdf and other formats of the documentation

link to the epub version. Best regards -- Laura Arjona Reina https://wiki.debian.org/LauraArjona >From 044e61f437e74fad6ce7e7d19b52419402c53881 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Laura Arjona Reina Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 08:32:38 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] update the links to the other formats of

Bug#810381: debian-policy: Update wording of 5.6.26 VCS-* fields to reflect the need for security

Russ Allbery wrote: > Jonathan Nieder writes: >> C. You have transport-level integrity protection, e.g. by using a >> protocol like https:// or ssh:// with proper PKI. > > I think it's worth being honest with ourselves here that the proper PKI > part is not really happening with the Vcs-Git

Bug#810381: debian-policy: Update wording of 5.6.26 VCS-* fields to reflect the need for security

Jonathan Nieder writes: > C. You have transport-level integrity protection, e.g. by using a > protocol like https:// or ssh:// with proper PKI. I think it's worth being honest with ourselves here that the proper PKI part is not really happening with the Vcs-Git field (or Vcs-Browser for tha

Bug#810381: debian-policy: Update wording of 5.6.26 VCS-* fields to reflect the need for security

Russ Allbery wrote: > Jonathan Nieder writes: >> Russ Allbery wrote: >>> (That said, my understanding is that you don't get any meaningful >>> integrity protection for Git from using https over http.) >> >> As discussed elsewhere in this thread, it depends on how much you >> trust (a) ca-certific

Bug#810381: debian-policy: Update wording of 5.6.26 VCS-* fields to reflect the need for security

Jonathan Nieder writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> (That said, my understanding is that you don't get any meaningful >> integrity protection for Git from using https over http.) > As discussed elsewhere in this thread, it depends on how much you > trust (a) ca-certificates, versus (b) DNS. FWIW,

Bug#810381: debian-policy: Update wording of 5.6.26 VCS-* fields to reflect the need for security

Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Russ Allbery wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 23 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst @@ -962,6 +962,10 @@ repository where the Debian source package is developed. More than one different V

Bug#810381: debian-policy: Update wording of 5.6.26 VCS-* fields to reflect the need for security

Russ Allbery wrote: > Sean Whitton writes: >> On Wed, Aug 23 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: >>> --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst >>> +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst >>> @@ -962,6 +962,10 @@ repository where the Debian source package is >>> developed. >>> >>> More than one different VCS may b

Bug#810381: debian-policy: Update wording of 5.6.26 VCS-* fields to reflect the need for security

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:20:39PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > @@ -962,6 +962,10 @@ repository where the Debian source package is developed. > > More than one different VCS may be specified for the same package. > > +

Bug#810381: debian-policy: Update wording of 5.6.26 VCS-* fields to reflect the need for security

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes: > On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Sean Whitton wrote: >> Seconded, but I think the integrity protection is a more important >> reason to avoid the git protocol or http, so if we can come up with a >> further change to reflect that it would be better. > Attacking the inte

Bug#810381: debian-policy: Update wording of 5.6.26 VCS-* fields to reflect the need for security

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Sean Whitton wrote: > Seconded, but I think the integrity protection is a more important > reason to avoid the git protocol or http, so if we can come up with a > further change to reflect that it would be better. Attacking the integrity of the messages in transit requires act

Bug#810381: debian-policy: Update wording of 5.6.26 VCS-* fields to reflect the need for security

Sean Whitton writes: > On Wed, Aug 23 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: >> --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst >> +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst >> @@ -962,6 +962,10 @@ repository where the Debian source package is developed. >> >> More than one different VCS may be specified for the same package

Bug#810381: debian-policy: Update wording of 5.6.26 VCS-* fields to reflect the need for security

On Wed, Aug 23 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: > --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > @@ -962,6 +962,10 @@ repository where the Debian source package is developed. > > More than one different VCS may be specified for the same package. > > +For both fields, any

Bug#810381: debian-policy: Update wording of 5.6.26 VCS-* fields to reflect the need for security

Control: tags -1 patch Scott Kitterman writes: > On January 8, 2016 12:26:24 PM EST, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Scott Kitterman writes: >>> As is currently being discussed on #debian-devel, the git:// protocol >>> is insecure, but is what is normally used in Vcs-git fields in Debian >>> packages.

Processed: Re: Bug#810381: debian-policy: Update wording of 5.6.26 VCS-* fields to reflect the need for security

Processing control commands: > tags -1 patch Bug #810381 [debian-policy] Update wording of 5.6.26 VCS-* fields to recommend encryption Added tag(s) patch. -- 810381: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=810381 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#71621: marked as done (Standardize when update-alternatives --remove may be called)

Your message dated Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:44:51 -0700 with message-id <87o9rlx51o@iris.silentflame.com> and subject line Closing inactive Policy bugs has caused the Debian Bug report #71621, regarding Standardize when update-alternatives --remove may be called to be marked as done. This

Bug#822430: marked as done (debian-policy: Please update 8.1.1 to use the "ldconfig" trigger instead)

Your message dated Sun, 06 Aug 2017 03:04:19 + with message-id and subject line Bug#822430: fixed in debian-policy 4.0.1.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #822430, regarding debian-policy: Please update 8.1.1 to use the "ldconfig" trigger instead to be marked as done. This mean

Bug#822430: debian-policy: Please update 8.1.1 to use the "ldconfig" trigger instead

onf[60] must use > ldconfig to update the shared library system. > > Any such package must have an "activate-noawait ldconfig" line in > their "triggers" control file. > """ > (replacing the entire section). > > Alternative wordings

Bug#822430: debian-policy: Please update 8.1.1 to use the "ldconfig" trigger instead

or a directory that is listed in /etc/ld.so.conf[60] must use > ldconfig to update the shared library system. > > Any such package must have an "activate-noawait ldconfig" line in > their "triggers" control file. > """ > (replacing the entire sec

Bug#868496: debian-policy: Please Clarify Need for update-fonts-dir in postinst and postrm Scripts

er idea. > > As of today, the New Maintainer's Guide is still required reading for > New Maintainers, but the Guide for Debian Maintainers is not required > reading. I will assume that is going to change in the future with > Osamu's focus on the latter document going forward if

Bug#868496: debian-policy: Please Clarify Need for update-fonts-dir in postinst and postrm Scripts

I am adding the maintainer of the New Maintainer's Guide and the Guide for Debian Maintainers, Osamu Aoki, to this discussion. I would like to reassign this wishlist bug to one of those packages if Osamu agrees. On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Paul Hardy wrote: > Sean, > > On Sun, Jul 16, 2017

Bug#844431: Status update from the Reproducible Builds project

>... > Debian Policy > = > > We are in the process of making reproducibility of packages something > properly documented in policy. Writing patches for policy is not easy, > so we welcome input from everyone to be able to better consider all the > needed facets. See bug #844431 [16]

Bug#868496: debian-policy: Please Clarify Need for update-fonts-dir in postinst and postrm Scripts

Sean, On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello Paul, > > On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 04:28:03PM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote: >> My intention was to point someone new to packaging fonts in Debian in >> the direction of an easy path, rather than leaving it up to that >> person to find t

Bug#868496: debian-policy: Please Clarify Need for update-fonts-dir in postinst and postrm Scripts

Hello Paul, On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 04:28:03PM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote: > My intention was to point someone new to packaging fonts in Debian in > the direction of an easy path, rather than leaving it up to that > person to find things out the hard way--or worse yet, doing things the > hard way. R

Bug#868496: debian-policy: Please Clarify Need for update-fonts-dir in postinst and postrm Scripts

Control: severity 868496 wishlist On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello Paul, > > On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 02:56:24AM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote: >> Then would you consider it acceptable to make some mention in a >> footnote to the effect that with the latest "dh" build tools,

Processed: Re: Bug#868496: debian-policy: Please Clarify Need for update-fonts-dir in postinst and postrm Scripts

Processing control commands: > severity 868496 wishlist Bug #868496 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Please Clarify Need for update-fonts-dir in postinst and postrm Scripts Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'minor' -- 868496: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cg

Bug#868496: debian-policy: Please Clarify Need for update-fonts-dir in postinst and postrm Scripts

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 12:21:40PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > No, the policy doesn't talk about dh_* and other helpers (except in > footnotes). Right. In a sense, Policy is the reference against which such helpers are developed. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Bug#868496: debian-policy: Please Clarify Need for update-fonts-dir in postinst and postrm Scripts

Hello Paul, On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 02:56:24AM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote: > Then would you consider it acceptable to make some mention in a > footnote to the effect that with the latest "dh" build tools, it isn't > necessary to have postinst and postrm scripts in the debian directory > for this purp

Bug#868496: debian-policy: Please Clarify Need for update-fonts-dir in postinst and postrm Scripts

Andrey, On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 09:57:32PM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote: >> "Font packages must invoke update-fonts-dir on each directory into >> which they install fonts. This invocation must occur in both the

Bug#868496: debian-policy: Please Clarify Need for update-fonts-dir in postinst and postrm Scripts

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 09:57:32PM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote: > "Font packages must invoke update-fonts-dir on each directory into > which they install fonts. This invocation must occur in both the > postinst (for all arguments) and postrm (for all arguments except >

Bug#868496: debian-policy: Please Clarify Need for update-fonts-dir in postinst and postrm Scripts

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.0.0.4 Severity: minor -- The Debian Policy Manual, Section 11.8.5, "Packages providing fonts", states in item 12: "Font packages must invoke update-fonts-dir on each directory into which they install fonts. This invocation must occur in both th

Bug#864615: please update version of posix standard for scripts (section 10.4)

s currently > > available on the opengroup site are 4 (from 2008) and 4.1 (from 2013). > > Please consider updating the policy. > Before doing that, we have to check whether all the relevant packages > are compliant with this update. Well, I don't all of our current she

Bug#47438: marked as done (Update Policy copyright)

Your message dated Sat, 24 Jun 2017 16:07:43 -0700 with message-id <87tw352dds@hope.eyrie.org> and subject line Re: Bug#47438: Copyright Information (Debian Policy Manual) has caused the Debian Bug report #47438, regarding Update Policy copyright to be marked as done. This means th

Bug#822430: debian-policy: Please update 8.1.1 to use the "ldconfig" trigger instead

On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 01:14:49PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: normal > > Hi, > > Please update 8.1.1 to use the "ldconfig" trigger[1]. [...] Seconded. (I agree that the wording could possibly be improved and would like to j

Bug#698012: marked as done (debian-policy: Please update 10.6 "Device files" for udev and the like)

Your message dated Mon, 19 Jun 2017 02:49:11 + with message-id and subject line Bug#698012: fixed in debian-policy 4.0.0.1 has caused the Debian Bug report #698012, regarding debian-policy: Please update 10.6 "Device files" for udev and the like to be marked as done. This mean

Bug#793493: marked as done (debian-policy: Update dpkg-architecture flags information)

Your message dated Mon, 19 Jun 2017 02:49:11 + with message-id and subject line Bug#793493: fixed in debian-policy 4.0.0.1 has caused the Debian Bug report #793493, regarding debian-policy: Update dpkg-architecture flags information to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

Bug#864615: please update version of posix standard for scripts (section 10.4)

ndard is 4.2 (published in 2016), earlier versions currently > > available on the opengroup site are 4 (from 2008) and 4.1 (from 2013). > > Please consider updating the policy. > > Hello Ralf, > > Before doing that, we have to check whether all the relevant packages &g

Bug#864615: please update version of posix standard for scripts (section 10.4)

se consider updating the policy. Hello Ralf, Before doing that, we have to check whether all the relevant packages are compliant with this update. This requires that someone reviews all packages that provide /bin/sh to check whether they implement SUSv4. The difference between SUSv3 and SUSv4 n

Bug#864615: please update version of posix standard for scripts (section 10.4)

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.0.0.0 Severity: normal Hello, section 10.4 says: Scripts may assume that /bin/sh implements the SUSv3 Shell Command Language ... This version of the standard is so outdated that it isn't even any longer available on the opengroup web site. The latest versio

  1   2   3   4   5   >