Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.0.0
Severity: minor
Hi,
perl/5.8.0-7 added /etc/perl to @INC:
* Prepend /etc/perl to @INC to provide a standard location for
configuration modules:
But this addition has never been documented in the Debian Perl Policy.
I suggest to add /etc/perl to the
On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 11:21:55AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > Are there shared libraries (not plugin) in Debian with SONAME of the
> > form libfoo-.so ?
>
> Yes, quite a few. All of the libdb packages, for instance.
>
> windlord:~> dpkg -L libdb4.6 | grep /usr/lib/
> /usr/lib/libdb-4.6.so
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 11:21:55AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Yes, quite a few. All of the libdb packages, for instance.
>>
>> windlord:~> dpkg -L libdb4.6 | grep /usr/lib/
>> /usr/lib/libdb-4.6.so
>> windlord:~> readelf -d /usr/lib/libdb-4.6.so | grep SONAME
>> 0x
Russ Allbery writes:
> Raphael Geissert writes:
>> I think it should be more clear and mention that --package must be used
>> when adding or removing diversions. --list{,name} and --truename don't
>> require --package.
> Good point. Here's an updated patch.
I've now merged this change for the
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to '
Russ Allbery writes:
> This patch removes the instructions for how to create shlibs.local files
> and the encouragement to do so if one runs into errors with
> dpkg-shlibdeps, since the archive coverage for shlibs is now complete and
> writing a shlibs.local file is unlikely to be an appropriate
Russ Allbery writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> The current description of the shlibs format in section 8.6.3 assumes
>> all shared libraries have SONAMEs of the form libfoo.so..
>> However, Debian's tools also support a versioned SONAME of the form
>> libfoo-.so.
> Here is the second patch, whi
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to '
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 12:15:38PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 1e641e6..9a72be5 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -5470,8 +5470,13 @@ Replaces: mail-transport-agent
> debian/shlibs.local
>
>
> -
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 12:15:38PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
>> index 1e641e6..9a72be5 100644
>> --- a/policy.sgml
>> +++ b/policy.sgml
>> @@ -5470,8 +5470,13 @@ Replaces: mail-transport-agent
>>debian/shlibs.local
>>
I think there was general consensus on the basic idea of the earlier
version of this patch, but Steve Langasek questioned the need for a
/usr/share/doc symlink to be supported by a direct dependency, as opposed
to an indirect dependency. This version of the patch relaxes that and
allows the depend
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to '
Russ Allbery writes:
> Kurt Roeckx writes:
>> So it looks to me that _REENTRANT is only used to make some functions
>> like getlogin_r available.
> I believe that's correct, and the discussion at the last DebConf reached
> the same conclusion. I think this bit in Policy is obsolete. I already
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to '
Joerg Jaspert writes:
> I think policy should include some words on the usage of Mailinglists as
> a Maintainer: address.
[...]
> I propose to add, someone please fix up en_GANNEFF:
> ---+++---
> If the Maintainer address points to a mailing list then that list must
> be configured to accept m
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to '
Paul Martin writes:
> Section 10.8 suggests the use of a configuration file in
> /etc/logrotate.d, but doesn't suggest a name.
> I propose that the suggested name be /etc/logrotate.d/ in
> almost all circumstances, irrespective of the name(s) of the files being
> rotated. A logrotate.d configura
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to '
Tobias Frost writes:
> Looking at #262257, as an exampple, there are packages which declares
> conflicts for whatever reason. However, the reason is NOT, that thec
> packages could not co-existent on the same system (For the example,
> retchmail could be also installed with fetchmail -- they do n
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to '
Raphael Geissert writes:
> Based on the results from the last archive-wide checkbashisms check on i386,
> the situation is as follows:
> There are about *91* unique binary packages with at least one match for
> the trap with signal numbers check.
> And about *112* unique binary packages with a
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to '
Russ Allbery writes:
> Lintian has several checks for the control files included in a binary
> package, but so far as I can tell, there is no general discussion in
> Policy right now about these files or any restrictions on them. This
> seems like something that should be discussed in Policy.
O
Hi,
On Saturday 03 July 2010 15:13:41 Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Here's a proposed patch that implements this. Objections or seconds?
>
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index bad28af..a676e71 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -7868,11 +7868,13 @@ ln -fs ../sbin/sendmail
Raphael Geissert writes:
> While we are at it please let's use invoke-rc.d, which is what should be
> used. The current example could actually be considered as a violation
> of section 9.3.3.2 (if a logrotate file is considered as a "package
> maintainer script,") so please take this email as an
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.0
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
I just noticed the Dm-Upload-Allowed field is not documented at all. Even
though it was introduced by the means of a GR, I think there's no reason for
it not to be documented in debian-policy.
Only the syntax and its "current agreed
On Saturday 03 July 2010 20:13:19 Russ Allbery wrote:
> Good point. Here's an updated patch.
>
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index bad28af..9399b1a 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -7868,11 +7868,13 @@ ln -fs ../sbin/sendmail debian/tmp/usr/bin/runq
>
>
>
Josip Rodin writes:
> The Policy section "Version numbers based on dates" recommends using
> simply MMDD for versions based on dates.
> However, it is not uncommon for upstream authors to release date-based
> versions for betas, and then later switch to e.g. 1.0 for "proper"
> releases. In
Hi Russ,
On Saturday 03 July 2010 18:49:40 Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here's a patch which implements that, plus an additional exception for
> libtool scripts which trap SIGPIPE by number. Objections or seconds?
> I'm copying Clint as posh maintainer since this will be relevant to which
> features pos
Raphael Geissert writes:
>> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
>> index bad28af..1658cbf 100644
>> --- a/policy.sgml
>> +++ b/policy.sgml
>> @@ -7427,7 +7427,19 @@ fname () {
>>
>>must be supported and must set the value of c to
>>delta.
>> -
>> +
Quoting a lot here for context on this old Policy bug.
Guillem Jover writes:
> On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 20:25:11 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>> Frans Pop (09/02/2010):
>>> On Tuesday 09 February 2010, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Frans Pop (09/02/2010):
> This format is not (yet) allowed by
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to '
Hi!
Here's a review from a non-native speaker.
On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 17:40:49 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index bad28af..3d5334d 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -804,6 +804,35 @@
> in the .deb file format.
>
>
> +
Hi!
On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 13:28:26 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Tobias Frost writes:
> > Looking at #262257, as an exampple, there are packages which declares
> > conflicts for whatever reason. However, the reason is NOT, that thec
> > packages could not co-existent on the same system (For the ex
34 matches
Mail list logo
