On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 at 09:15:24 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Some time has passed without objections so I would be happy to add these
> two virtual packages. My only concern is that there are going to be
> quite a few virtual packages in this area, now, and the virtual packages
&g
ithout objections so I would be happy to add these
two virtual packages. My only concern is that there are going to be
quite a few virtual packages in this area, now, and the virtual packages
list will contain only terse descriptions of each one. Someone
packaging a new session/display manager/WM m
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 02:18:51PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 20:12:21 +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > I propose this entry for virtual-package-names-list.yaml:
> >
> > - name: wayland-session
> > description: a Wayland desktop session
> > (/usr/share/wayland-session
On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 20:12:21 +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> I propose this entry for virtual-package-names-list.yaml:
>
> - name: wayland-session
> description: a Wayland desktop session
> (/usr/share/wayland-sessions/*.desktop)
Having looked more closely at display managers, I think we sho
n the
todo.txt world since our previous dicsussion has changed matters such
that there are concrete usecases for the virtual packages that you can
explain, then please consider opening a new bug with that explanation.
We have a significant disconnect here. The todo.txt-base (and gtd)
packages
Your message dated Thu, 27 Jan 2022 15:11:51 -0700
with message-id <87wnik96c8@melete.silentflame.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#976402: Proposed official virtual packages - todo and
todo.txt
has caused the Debian Bug report #976402,
regarding Proposed official virtual packages - to
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 11:53 AM Novy, Ondrej
wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2021 14:20:57 +0100 Bill Allombert
> wrote:
> > What Sean meant is that, at this stage, this proposal needs to be
> > seconded by people impacted by this virtual package before being
> > accepted.
>
> as maintainer of todotxt-c
On Sat, 2 Jan 2021 14:20:57 +0100 Bill Allombert wrote:
> What Sean meant is that, at this stage, this proposal needs to be
> seconded by people impacted by this virtual package before being
> accepted.
as maintainer of todotxt-cli I second this.
--
Best regards
Ondřej Nový
signature.asc
De
On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 04:42:46PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> > Second seconds request.
> I'm not aware of any other inputs expected of me.
What Sean meant is that, at this stage, this proposal needs to be
seconded by people impacted by this virtual package before being
accepted.
If you know a
control: tag -1 - moreinfo
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 11:32 AM David Steele wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 5:29 PM David Steele wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:42 PM Sean Whitton
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Could you provide an actual patch against policy.git, please, for
>>> seconding? See
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 - moreinfo
Bug #976402 [debian-policy] Proposed official virtual packages - todo and
todo.txt
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.
--
976402: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=976402
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org w
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 5:29 PM David Steele wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:42 PM Sean Whitton
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Could you provide an actual patch against policy.git, please, for
>> seconding? See README.md in policy.git for more info.
>>
>> --
>> Sean Whitton
>>
>
>
> https://salsa.debian.o
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 2:34 PM David Steele wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 2:14 PM Sean Whitton
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Okay, and you expect every implementation of todo.txt to have
>> tdtcleanup? I think we probably want to specify that as one of the (or
>> the only?) requirements of the virt
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 2:14 PM Sean Whitton
wrote:
>
> Okay, and you expect every implementation of todo.txt to have
> tdtcleanup? I think we probably want to specify that as one of the (or
> the only?) requirements of the virtual package.
>
No, no.
The gtd stuff is an optional add-on to tod
Hello,
On Wed 16 Dec 2020 at 10:02AM -05, David Steele wrote:
> Imagine that tdtcleanup is a pre/post hook in todo.txt-base. An
> implementation of todo.txt is needed
> to make use of it.
Okay, and you expect every implementation of todo.txt to have
tdtcleanup? I think we probably want to speci
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 5:29 PM David Steele wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:48 PM Sean Whitton
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Putting aside the use of the alternatives system, why is a virtual
>> package wanted? When would it be useful to be able to declare a
>> dependency and have it satisfied by o
Hello,
On Mon 14 Dec 2020 at 05:29PM -05, David Steele wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:48 PM Sean Whitton
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Putting aside the use of the alternatives system, why is a virtual
>> package wanted? When would it be useful to be able to declare a
>> dependency and have it satisf
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:48 PM Sean Whitton
wrote:
>
>
> Putting aside the use of the alternatives system, why is a virtual
> package wanted? When would it be useful to be able to declare a
> dependency and have it satisfied by one of these implementations?
>
>
As an example, a future rev of an
control: tag -1 + patch
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:42 PM Sean Whitton
wrote:
>
> Could you provide an actual patch against policy.git, please, for
> seconding? See README.md in policy.git for more info.
>
> --
> Sean Whitton
>
https://salsa.debian.org/steele/policy/-/tree/bug976402-steele
d
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 + patch
Bug #976402 [debian-policy] Proposed official virtual packages - todo and
todo.txt
Added tag(s) patch.
--
976402: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=976402
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 + moreinfo
Bug #976402 [debian-policy] Proposed official virtual packages - todo and
todo.txt
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
976402: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=976402
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
control: tag -1 + moreinfo
Hello David,
On Fri 04 Dec 2020 at 12:15PM -05, David Steele wrote:
> I'd like to propose adding the virtual packages "todo" and "todo.txt" to
> the authoritative list of virtual package names. I'm submitting this per
> Pol
Hello,
On Mon 14 Dec 2020 at 09:35AM -05, Dave Steele wrote:
> Update. No todo, and suggest the following for todo.txt text:
>
> command-line task management utility compatible with todo.txt CLI (
> http://todotxt.org)
Could you provide an actual patch against policy.git, please, for
secondi
Update. No todo, and suggest the following for todo.txt text:
command-line task management utility compatible with todo.txt CLI (
http://todotxt.org)
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 2:57 PM Dave Steele wrote:
> Please update the Authoritative List of Virtual Package Names to
> include "todo" and "to
Your message dated Mon, 14 Dec 2020 09:28:18 -0500
with message-id
and subject line
has caused the Debian Bug report #976402,
regarding Proposed official virtual packages - todo and todo.txt
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not
David Steele writes:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 3:21 AM Ansgar wrote:
>> Given topydo just provides/conflicts with devtodo to provide the "todo"
>> binary, this seems to violate Policy 10.1 "Binaries" unless they provide
>> the same functionality.
[...]
> From where I stand, I would expect the Polic
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 2:44 PM David Steele wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 3:21 AM Ansgar wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Should emacs provide a "todo" script to open ~/TODO (with say org-mode)?
>>
>
In regards to org mode. I'd add a third criteria - the expectation that the
underlying
file complies with
n interpreter mode and
a
GUI mode, which I do not believe are pertinent to the discussion.. Devtodo
has one-off commands as well, along with other end point to support specific
commands.
> Should emacs provide a "todo" script to open ~/TODO (with say org-mode)?
>
Again, not sure
David Steele writes:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:15 PM Bill Allombert wrote:
>
>> What about devtodo ?
>>
>> Reading your summary, it seems that the todo.txt virtual package
>> is well specified, but the todo one is not.
>>
>> Do you envision to have packages depending on todo and then use the
>> t
Please update the Authoritative List of Virtual Package Names to
include "todo" and "todo.txt".
Discussion of the change is documented in [#976402].
[#976402]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=976402
Suggested content:
# Miscellaneous
virtualPackages:
- name: todo
descr
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 6:39 PM Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 06:23:44PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 6:21 PM David Steele wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 5:54 PM Bill Allombert
> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Are people using /usr/bin/todo i
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 06:23:44PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 6:21 PM David Steele wrote:
>
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 5:54 PM Bill Allombert wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Are people using /usr/bin/todo in script or Makefile ?
> >> Are they likely to still work with the alter
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 6:21 PM David Steele wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 5:54 PM Bill Allombert wrote:
>
>>
>> Are people using /usr/bin/todo in script or Makefile ?
>> Are they likely to still work with the alternatives ?
>>
>
> I'd say no. It is an interactive end-user command.
>
> This g
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 5:54 PM Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> Are people using /usr/bin/todo in script or Makefile ?
> Are they likely to still work with the alternatives ?
>
I'd say no. It is an interactive end-user command.
This gives flexibility in what they are interacting with.
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 05:12:13PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 4:42 PM Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 01:34:44PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:15 PM Bill Allombert
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Do you envision to have packages d
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 4:42 PM Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 01:34:44PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:15 PM Bill Allombert
> wrote:
> >
> > > Do you envision to have packages depending on todo and then use the
> > > todo binary ?
> > >
> >
> > No. This
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 01:34:44PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:15 PM Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > What about devtodo ?
> >
> > Reading your summary, it seems that the todo.txt virtual package
> > is well specified, but the todo one is not.
> >
> > Do you envision to have
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:15 PM Bill Allombert wrote:
> What about devtodo ?
>
> Reading your summary, it seems that the todo.txt virtual package
> is well specified, but the todo one is not.
>
> Do you envision to have packages depending on todo and then use the
> todo binary ?
>
No. This is a m
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 12:40:01PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 12:30 PM Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> >
> > Does all theses tools provide an compatible interface ?
> > In other word, are there interoperable ?
>
> Yes, topydo and todotxt-cli support common commands, which make
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 12:30 PM Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> Does all theses tools provide an compatible interface ?
> In other word, are there interoperable ?
>
Yes, topydo and todotxt-cli support common commands, which make them
interoperable for most uses. However, the command sets are not iden
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 12:15:06PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: wishlist
> X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-de...@lists.debian.org, charlesmel...@outlook.com,
> on...@debian.org
> thanks
>
>
> I'd like to propose adding th
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-de...@lists.debian.org, charlesmel...@outlook.com,
on...@debian.org
thanks
I'd like to propose adding the virtual packages "todo" and "todo.txt" to
the authoritative list of virtual package n
Your message dated Sun, 07 Jul 2019 15:34:50 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#917431: fixed in debian-policy 4.4.0.0
has caused the Debian Bug report #917431,
regarding debian-policy: virtual packages: logind, default-logind
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.3.0.3
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
In the webpage of the debian policy manual in
section 3.6 Virtual Packages the link
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.yaml.
is broken.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 9.6
preferring the library that matches our default installation, which is
> libsystemd. Derivatives like Devuan that don't have libsystemd at all
> are of course free to link their libsystemd users to libelogind instead.
We don't seem to have a consensus on this question yet. I don't
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 +pending
Bug #917431 [debian-policy] debian-policy: virtual packages: logind,
default-logind
Added tag(s) pending.
--
917431: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=917431
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
; requirements were changed in a minor patch release.
>
> +Unreleased
> +--
> +
> +virtual
> + New ``logind`` and ``default-logind`` virtual packages for a package
> +providing logind API (over D-Bus and /run/), and for Debian's pr
ge to the upgrading checklist rather than the main part
> of the Policy -- not sure if you want seconds for that.
No, the upgrading checklist is at the Policy Editor's discretion. No
need for seconding.
> The upgrading-checklist part would then be:
>
> +virtual
> +New `
On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 at 15:39:58 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 02:07:25PM +, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > Ideally, this would be reviewed and seconded by people working on init
> > stuff, so I'm not going to second it myself unless we don't get interest.
>
> I asked around, a
e:
+virtual
+New ``logind`` and ``default-logind`` virtual packages for a package
+providing logind API (over D-Bus and sd-login), and for Debian's
+preferred implementation, respectively.
(one word difference).
Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Ivan was a worldly man: born in St. Peter
Hello Adam,
On Fri 28 Dec 2018 at 12:36pm +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 06:28:04PM +, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> Could you provide an actual diff to be applied to policy.git, please?
>
> Sure, what about:?
Thanks.
Ideally, this would be reviewed and seconded by people wo
ult-logind`` virtual packages for a package
+providing logind API (over D-Bus and /run/), and for Debian's preferred
+implementation, respectively.
+
Version 4.3.0
-
diff --git a/virtual-package-names-list.yaml b/virtual-package-names-list.yaml
index afb76a3..de54e32 1006
On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 at 02:52:09 +0900, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Adam Borowski writes:
> > Thus, the wording would be (as proposed by fsateler):
> >
> > logind: an org.freedesktop.login1 D-Bus API implementation
> >
> > default-logind: should be provided by the distribution's default logind
> > pro
Hello,
On Thu 27 Dec 2018 at 06:36pm +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> As discussed in bug #915407, we'd want a virtual package for logind
> implementations. At present, two packages implement this functionality:
> libpam-systemd and libpam-elogind.
>
> This has been discussed, including a formal pr
Adam Borowski wrote:
> logind: an org.freedesktop.login1 D-Bus API implementation
> default-logind: distribution's default logind provider
Seconded.
I like this description because it doesn't make assumptions about how
many logind implementions there are or which is the current default,
which sh
Adam Borowski writes:
> Thus, the wording would be (as proposed by fsateler):
>
> logind: an org.freedesktop.login1 D-Bus API implementation
>
> default-logind: should be provided by the distribution's default logind
> provider (currently pam-systemd)
So any provider of logind would have to provid
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.3.0.1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Hi!
As discussed in bug #915407, we'd want a virtual package for logind
implementations. At present, two packages implement this functionality:
libpam-systemd and libpam-elogind.
This has been discussed, including a formal pr
Your message dated Sun, 23 Dec 2018 10:49:07 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#833401: fixed in debian-policy 4.3.0.0
has caused the Debian Bug report #833401,
regarding debian-policy: virtual packages: dbus-session-bus,
dbus-default-session-bus
to be marked as done.
This means that
On Fri, 07 Dec 2018 19:26:50 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Thanks. Seeking seconds:
>
> diff --git a/virtual-package-names-list.yaml b/virtual-package-names-list.yaml
> index ab2662e..f7626ef 100644
> --- a/virtual-package-names-list.yaml
> +++ b/virtual-package-names-list.yaml
> @@ -106,6 +106,1
On Fri, 07 Dec 2018 at 19:26:50 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> diff --git a/virtual-package-names-list.yaml b/virtual-package-names-list.yaml
> + - name: dbus-session-bus
> + description: provides the D-Bus well-known session bus for most or all
> user login sessions
> + - name: default-dbus-sessi
control: tag -1 +patch
Hello,
On Sat 24 Nov 2018 at 03:23PM GMT, Simon McVittie wrote:
> The routes that I described as "other options" were not taken.
>
> The current situation is that we have the two virtual packages that I
> proposed in the original bug report
> ht
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 +patch
Bug #833401 [debian-policy] debian-policy: virtual packages: dbus-session-bus,
dbus-default-session-bus
Added tag(s) patch.
--
833401: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=833401
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.
Kindly
> update this bug with the present state of play.
The routes that I described as "other options" were not taken.
The current situation is that we have the two virtual packages that I
proposed in the original bug report
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=833401#5
f apt
> is configured to see more than one suite (perhaps unstable and testing, or
> testing and stable-security) and the package providing default-d-s-b differs
> between those suites.
>
> If the scheme involving two virtual packages is preferred over this
> option, I would very muc
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 +moreinfo
Bug #833401 [debian-policy] debian-policy: virtual packages: dbus-session-bus,
dbus-default-session-bus
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
833401: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=833401
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact
essage ---
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.1.1
Severity: wishlist
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hello,
while opening the debian-policy wishlist bug [1] about creating a vim-python3
package, I've noticed that the existing `vim-python` package is not in the list
of virtual packages
n in the bug as well,
> that would help.
>
I have opened wishlist bugs for vim-python3 [1] and vim-python [2]. It may
make sense to merge them.
vim-python is already present in the repos, so whatever the outcome of
the vim-python3 bug I think it ought to be in the virtual packages
name lis
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.1.1
Severity: wishlist
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hello,
while opening the debian-policy wishlist bug [1] about creating a vim-python3
package, I've noticed that the existing `vim-python` package is not in the list
of virtual pac
Víctor Cuadrado Juan writes:
> I've noticed that the existing `vim-python` package is not in the list of
> virtual packages maintained at [1].
> Please, consider adding it to the list. I propose the following description:
> Miscellaneous
> -
> vim-python
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 #779506,
regarding per-protocol virtual packages for boardgame AI engines and GUI
to be marked as done.
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> retitle 823766 Define *-browser virtual packages
Bug #823766 [debian-policy] firefox: alternative for
/usr/share/applications/x-www-browser.desktop
Changed Bug title to 'Define *-browser virtual packages' from 'firefox:
al
Your message dated Mon, 19 Jun 2017 02:49:12 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#829367: fixed in debian-policy 4.0.0.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #829367,
regarding Please add virtual-mysql-* packages to the official list of virtual
packages
to be marked as done.
This means that
Your message dated Sun, 28 May 2017 21:03:40 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#829367: fixed in debian-policy 4.0.0.0
has caused the Debian Bug report #829367,
regarding Please add virtual-mysql-* packages to the official list of virtual
packages
to be marked as done.
This means that
>>> package
>>> virtual-mysql-server - A MySQL database compatible server package
>>> virtual-mysql-server-core- A MySQL database compatible server core
>>> package
>>> virtual-mysql-testsuite - A MySQL database compatible test suite
>
server - A MySQL database compatible server package
> > virtual-mysql-server-core- A MySQL database compatible server core
> > package
> > virtual-mysql-testsuite - A MySQL database compatible test suite
> > package
>
> I second adding these virtua
> From: Otto Kekäläinen
> Subject: Re: Please add virtual-mysql-* pacakges to the official list of
> virtual packages
> To: Bill Allombert
> Cc: debian-policy@lists.debian.org, Paul Gevers
> 2016-07-02 20:12 GMT+01:00 Bill Allombert
> :
>> Could you provide
it avoids ambiguity if apt
is configured to see more than one suite (perhaps unstable and testing, or
testing and stable-security) and the package providing default-d-s-b differs
between those suites.
If the scheme involving two virtual packages is preferred over this
option, I would very much appreciate
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-de...@lists.debian.org
I propose two new virtual packages:
dbus-session-bus: anything providing the D-Bus well-known session bus
for user login sessions
dbus-default-session-bus: Debian's preferred implementation of
dbus-sessio
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.7.0
- Forwarded message from Otto Kekäläinen -
From: Otto Kekäläinen
To: Bill Allombert
Cc: debian-policy@lists.debian.org, Paul Gevers
Subject: Re: Please add virtual-mysql-* pacakges to the official list of
virtual packages
2016-07-02 20:12 GMT
2016-07-02 20:12 GMT+01:00 Bill Allombert :
> Could you provide the list of the new virtual packages together with their
> description ?
>
> The page you link provide the list but no description.
The list and descriptions:
virtual-mysql-client - A MySQL database compa
On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 06:14:28PM +0300, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Paul noted to me that the file
> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.txt
> does not list mysql-virtual-* packages.
>
> I suggest you to add it there.
>
>
Hello!
Paul noted to me that the file
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.txt
does not list mysql-virtual-* packages.
I suggest you to add it there.
This virtual package naming scheme has been agreed on inside the
pkg-mysql-maint team (which is accepted
ehavior from package managers (apt/aptitude) preferring
to uninstall the most recent package providing some virtual packages for
the benefit of older real ones.
An example of this behavior is detailed here
<http://askubuntu.com/questions/767931/how-to-make-apt-aptitude-prefer-a-more-recent-virtual-
> Following the short discussion starting at [1], I'm submitting the
> > > following list of virtual packages, to facilitate the declaration of
> > > protocol compatibility between boardgame AI engines, boardgame GUI's
> > > and protocol adapters:
> > &
Your message dated Sat, 9 May 2015 18:20:12 +0200
with message-id <20150509162012.GB26695@yellowpig>
and subject line Re: Bug#693793: New virtual packages: lv2-host and lv2-plugin
has caused the Debian Bug report #693793,
regarding New virtual packages: lv2-host and lv2-plugin
to be marked a
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 07:37:06PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 05:59:39PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > Following the short discussion starting at [1], I'm submitting the
> >
On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 05:59:39PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Following the short discussion starting at [1], I'm submitting the
> following list of virtual packages, to facilitate the declaration of
> protocol compatibili
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Following the short discussion starting at [1], I'm submitting the
following list of virtual packages, to facilitate the declaration of
protocol compatibility between boardgame AI engines, boardgame GUI's
and protocol adapters:
* cecp-game-eng
Your message dated Wed, 17 Sep 2014 19:03:26 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#754876: fixed in debian-policy 3.9.6.0
has caused the Debian Bug report #754876,
regarding Virtual packages for the new Java runtimes
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:44:32AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> diff --git a/virtual-package-names-list.txt b/virtual-package-names-list.txt
> index 2c2a175..ac98261 100644
> --- a/virtual-package-names-list.txt
> +++ b/virtual-package-names-list.txt
> @@ -161,8 +161,16 @@ Graphics and MultiMedia
On 07/16/2014 02:44 AM, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 09:39:33PM -0700, tony mancill wrote:
>> On 07/15/2014 11:30 AM, Bill Allombert wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:57:18PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 15/07/2014 16:22, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> Could you
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 09:39:33PM -0700, tony mancill wrote:
> On 07/15/2014 11:30 AM, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:57:18PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> >> Le 15/07/2014 16:22, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> >>
> >>> Could you please write the definition for each of them, and
On 07/15/2014 11:30 AM, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:57:18PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> Le 15/07/2014 16:22, Bill Allombert a écrit :
>>
>>> Could you please write the definition for each of them, and determine
>>> whether
>>> java1-runtime and java2-runtime should be ke
Le 15/07/2014 16:22, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> Could you please write the definition for each of them, and determine whether
> java1-runtime and java2-runtime should be kept ?
Hi Bill,
Here is the definition of these packages:
java5-runtime a Java runtime environment, Java version 5
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:57:18PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 15/07/2014 16:22, Bill Allombert a écrit :
>
> > Could you please write the definition for each of them, and determine
> > whether
> > java1-runtime and java2-runtime should be kept ?
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Here is the definition of
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 02:51:18PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Hi,
>
> The list of virtual packages [1] contains only two packages for the Java
> runtimes (java1-runtime and java2-runtime), but new virtual packages
> h
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
The list of virtual packages [1] contains only two packages for the Java
runtimes (java1-runtime and java2-runtime), but new virtual packages
have been in use since at least 2008 when sun-java and openjdk started
to be packaged [2].
Could you please
ith one selected essentially at
> >> random. Is that desirable ?
> >
> > Usually, the Enhances: relationship is a better one than a Depends:/
> > Recommends:/Suggests: in plugin packages.
>
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >
Your message dated Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:18:26 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#668394: fixed in debian-policy 3.9.5.0
has caused the Debian Bug report #668394,
regarding remove mp3-encoder and mp3-decoder virtual packages
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem
Charles Plessy wrote:
> I went ahead and removed the mp3-decoder virtual package as well. The
> changelog
> now reads as follows.
>
> * virtual-package-names-list: removed mp3-decoder and mp3-encoder.
> Seconded: Jonathan Nieder
> Seconded: Kurt Roeckx
> Seconded: Charles Plessy
1 - 100 of 237 matches
Mail list logo
