Russ Allbery wrote:
> Josselin Mouette writes:
>> If we use build IDs (and this has quite some advantages, like being able
>> to do more than just dump the ddebs on a repository), this can lead to
>> having the same detached debugging symbols in two binary packages, since
>> sometimes a binary is
On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the question in the subject may sound a bit naive, but I’m starting to
> wonder why we still set the Standards-Version in package control files.
>
> AIUI, this header is here to indicate which version of the policy the
> package is supposed to
On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:59:09 +0200
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
>> However I think this approach doesn’t fit the current way we deal with
>> policy changes. The de facto way of dealing with policy breakages
>> currently is to directly report serious bugs
Le mercredi 12 août 2009 à 08:16 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> > AIUI, this header is here to indicate which version of the policy the
> > package is supposed to conform to. This way, we have a way to enforce
> > which policy versions are supported, e.g. in a stable release, by
> > forbidding
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 12 août 2009 à 08:16 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
AIUI, this header is here to indicate which version of the policy the
package is supposed to conform to. This way, we have a way to enforce
which policy versions are supported, e.g. in a stable release, by
On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 12 août 2009 à 08:16 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> > AIUI, this header is here to indicate which version of the policy the
>> > package is supposed to conform to. This way, we have a way to enforce
>> > which policy versions are sup
Hi!
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 15:21:33 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Particularly given the info file change, I think we've now accumulated
> enough stuff in Git to warrant another Policy release. There are a few
> other things in flight, but as before we can always pick those up in the
> next release
Guillem Jover wrote:
While reading the changelog, I noticed there's been seconds by non-DDs
and then wondered if those are meant to be counted or not (my
recollection tells me no, but I was not sure).
Reading the PolicyChangesProcess [0] it's not that clear, it seems to
hint to only DDs being a
On Aug 12, Josselin Mouette (j...@debian.org) wrote:
> Le mercredi 12 août 2009 à 08:16 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> > > AIUI, this header is here to indicate which version of the policy the
> > > package is supposed to conform to. This way, we have a way to enforce
> > > which policy
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Could we please move the default to 755, not 2775, like every other
> > "normal" directory in Debian? There is little point in keeping those
> > directories world-writable if they stop being owned by group st
Hi!
On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 13:03:13 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Open questions:
> * Can we require a one-to-one correspondance between binary package names
> and debug package names that provide symbols for that binary package? I
> think we should; I think it would make the system more strai
Le mercredi 12 août 2009 à 11:06 -0400, Neil Roeth a écrit :
> I've had some packages for years during which policy was changed and required
> corresponding changes in my packages. In that case, the "previous developer"
> was me, so I'm pretty confident that the previous developer did at least as
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the question in the subject may sound a bit naive, but I’m starting to
> wonder why we still set the Standards-Version in package control files.
>
> AIUI, this header is here to indicate which version of the policy the
> package is supposed to conform to. This wa
Guillem Jover writes:
> While reading the changelog, I noticed there's been seconds by non-DDs
> and then wondered if those are meant to be counted or not (my
> recollection tells me no, but I was not sure).
>
> Reading the PolicyChangesProcess [0] it's not that clear, it seems to
> hint to only
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" writes:
> Ah ;-) I never seconded proposal, because I was thinking that only
> policy delegate could vote.
> So now I don't understand what are the task of policy delegates.
The special tasks of Policy delegates are:
* Commit access to the Git repository and uploads of th
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Santiago Vila wrote:
> No need to add configuration stuff. If a user wants something
> different than the default, he/she can easily make a chown and a
> chgrp.
chown and chgrp is exactly the method of configuration I mean.
> Let's keep it simple: Beginning squeeze, base-file
Josselin Mouette writes:
> This assumes that the previous developer has correctly updated the
> package according to the stated Standards version. Which is, in the
> general case, wrong.
No, it assumes that the previous developer tried to update the package
according to the stated standards vers
On Aug 12, Josselin Mouette (j...@debian.org) wrote:
> Le mercredi 12 août 2009 à 11:06 -0400, Neil Roeth a écrit :
> > I've had some packages for years during which policy was changed and
> > required
> > corresponding changes in my packages. In that case, the "previous
> > developer"
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes:
> I'd be in favour of making it optional or deprecating it if we (as in
> the project) were good in adding checks to lintian for changes in the
> policy or reporting bugs where it's not possible (or in addition to the
> checks).
I already attempt to add checks to L
Santiago Vila writes:
> Let's keep it simple: Beginning squeeze, base-files will no longer
> create those directories with special permissions. I think this respects
> the "principle of least surprise", as already created directories (from
> lenny) will be kept in whatever status they are.
>
> No
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Looking over the changelog, I think this is specifically relevant to
> Bug#493007 (localized man pages should be up-to-date or warn), since a
> db.debian.org doesn't return a DD match for Helge Kreutzmann. We'd need
> another second for that proposal or I
Le mercredi 12 août 2009 à 14:17 -0400, Neil Roeth a écrit :
> If people don't have time to handle all their packages properly, they should
> reduce the number of packages they maintain.
I’ve seen this kind of arguments again and again, and every time it
looks more stupid to me. If you don’t have
On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> There will still be a repository with all the .ddebs.
And aptitude and dpkg will know how to install ddebs, somehow?
and synaptic, etc?
> But also we will have a share that will ship all the debugging symbols
> in a build id file hie
Paul Wise writes:
> Not having anything to do with Ubuntu, I don't know anything about the
> details, but they have had automatic debug packages and automated
> crash report stuff for quite a while, a couple of years IIRC. The
> specs for that are here:
>
> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/apt-
On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Paul Wise writes:
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Manoj Srivastava
>> wrote:
>
>>> I too am wondering if we should defer the polivy change until
>>> the details get shaken out with a partial deployment of the scheme.
>
>> Full deployment al
On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Paul Wise writes:
>
>> Not having anything to do with Ubuntu, I don't know anything about the
>> details, but they have had automatic debug packages and automated
>> crash report stuff for quite a while, a couple of years IIRC. The
>> specs for that are
26 matches
Mail list logo
