Hi!
On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 22:26:27 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> If this already works, we should document it, since it can be quite
> useful. Here's an attempt at wording. Please check this and make sure
> that I'm correctly documenting what works.
>
> Do architecture restrictions work with Pro
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 08:03:25PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > @@ -7897,25 +7899,28 @@ ln -fs ../sbin/sendmail debian/tmp/usr/bin/runq
> > section="8">):
> >
> > /var/log/foo/*.log {
> > -rotate 12
> > -weekly
> > -compress
> > -postrotate
> > -/etc/init.d/foo force-reload
>
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 12:26:40PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -7225,10 +7225,10 @@ INSTALL = install -s # (or use strip on the files in
> debian/tmp)
>for C files) will need to be compiled twice, for the normal
>case.
>
Russ Allbery writes:
> 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 i
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 19:31:43 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> However, I think this whole bit really doesn't belong in Policy. For
> packages that are snapshot-based with no regular version number but one
> that might show up later, I'd use 0~MMDD. For ones that are
> pre-releases, I'd use ~
* Russ Allbery , 2010-07-03, 13:28:
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -4778,6 +4778,15 @@ Build-Depends: foo [linux-any], bar [any-i386], baz
[!linux-any]
+ Neither Breaks nor Conflicts should be used
+ unless two packages cannot be installed at the same t
* Russ Allbery , 2010-07-03, 12:15:
+
+ The dependency on the package containing the copyright
+ information and distribution license must be strong
+ (Depends or Pre-Depends). This dependency
+ may be indirect through other packages (fo
Steve Langasek writes:
> This force-reload also caught my eye when I first read the patch, but I
> think this should be treated as a separate bug. logrotate scripts are *not*
> maintainer scripts, and recommending use of invoke-rc.d for non-maintainer
> scripts is a separate substantive change t
Simon Josefsson writes:
> I don't think it should reference _REENTRANT any more for modern
> GNU/Linux system like Debian.
I think I may not have provided enough context, but indeed, that's the
point of this bug and my proposed patch.
> Thus, I would suggest simply saying this:
>
>
Guillem Jover writes:
> Here's a review from a non-native speaker.
Thank you!
> On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 17:40:49 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> +A .deb package contains two sets of files: a set of files
>> +to installed on the system when the package is installed, and a
> /files to insta
Jakub Wilk writes:
> * Russ Allbery , 2010-07-03, 12:15:
>>+
>>+ The dependency on the package containing the copyright
>>+ information and distribution license must be strong
>>+ (Depends or Pre-Depends). This dependency
>>+ may be indirect throu
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.0
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
With the risk of making this request too broad, I think there's no good reason
why any code (i.e. not just scripts) provided by a package (whether it comes
from upstream or was added by the maintainer) should ever call an init script
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 08:29:32AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > This force-reload also caught my eye when I first read the patch, but I
> > think this should be treated as a separate bug. logrotate scripts are *not*
> > maintainer scripts, and recommending use of invok
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 14:11:17 -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> A possible way to implement this state-based policy without relying on the
> underlying boot system would be to require packages and users to never call
> init script directly and to make service(8) the interface to init scripts f
Hi,
I'm seconding the change below.
Cheers,
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index bad28af..316f753 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -4373,21 +4373,24 @@ Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.1), exim | mail-transport-agent
>
>
>
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 02:11:17PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> With the risk of making this request too broad, I think there's no good
> reason why any code (i.e. not just scripts) provided by a package (whether
> it comes from upstream or was added by the maintainer) should ever call an
> ini
I just noticed that the initscript for /etc/rc.local does not include
/usr/local/sbin and /usr/local/bin/ in its PATH. This seems like an obvious
oops, but maybe I'm missing something. A more clear policy regarding PATH
variables would be great.
I often run a custom script or 2 from /etc/rc.l
* Russ Allbery , 2010-07-04, 09:53:
+
+ The packages are the same version (both source and Debian
+ revision) with the possible exception of binary-only
+ rebuilds of one of the packages, since otherwise
+ the changelog.Debian.gz in one o
Steve Langasek writes:
> I'm not nearly so certain that it's not a bug to use invoke-rc.d here.
> The desired semantics of a logrotate script are "after rotating the log,
> *iff the daemon is running*, reload it to trigger it to reopen the
> logfile; otherwise do nothing". *Neither* the existing
Jakub Wilk writes:
> * Russ Allbery , 2010-07-04, 09:53:
>>+
>>+ The packages are the same version (both source and Debian
>>+ revision) with the possible exception of binary-only
>>+ rebuilds of one of the packages, since otherwise
>>+ the changelo
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 02:51:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > I'm not nearly so certain that it's not a bug to use invoke-rc.d here.
> > The desired semantics of a logrotate script are "after rotating the log,
> > *iff the daemon is running*, reload it to trigger it t
On Sunday 04 July 2010 00:04:20 Russ Allbery wrote:
> Yeah, I was trying too hard to avoid a problem which doesn't really
> exist. Here's an updated patch.
>
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index bad28af..8b715d0 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -7427,7 +7427,18 @@ f
Le Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 01:04:05PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> + Every package must have a Debian maintainer.
Hello everybody,
given the recent discussion on debian-project, how about taking the opportunity
of this bug to disambiguate this sentence as well:
‘Every package must have a m
Charles Plessy writes:
> Le Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 01:04:05PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>> + Every package must have a Debian maintainer.
> Hello everybody,
> given the recent discussion on debian-project, how about taking the
> opportunity of this bug to disambiguate this sentence as we
Russ Allbery writes:
> Maybe "maintainer in Debian"? Or "maintainer for Debian"?
Given that “Debian” is an operating system, that doesn't seem like an
improvement in clarity.
How about:
Every package must have a maintainer. The maintainer must be a
member of the Debian project.
--
Le Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 07:57:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> Maybe "maintainer in Debian"? Or "maintainer for Debian"?
Le Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 01:11:27PM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
>
> How about:
>
> Every package must have a maintainer. The maintainer must be a
> member of th
Ben Finney writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> Maybe "maintainer in Debian"? Or "maintainer for Debian"?
> Given that “Debian” is an operating system, that doesn't seem like an
> improvement in clarity.
> How about:
> Every package must have a maintainer. The maintainer must be a
> mem
Charles Plessy writes:
> Le Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 01:11:27PM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
> > Every package must have a maintainer. The maintainer must be a
> > member of the Debian project.
Thank you for pointing out the flaws in this formulation.
>
> I think that ‘Every package must have
Ben Finney writes:
> What is it, then, that distinguishes conformant packages from packages
> that simply have a ‘debian/’ directory? If the result is a working
> package that otherwise conforms, what more is needed, exactly?
> In other words, why is it not enough to simply say:
> Every pac
Russ Allbery writes:
> Maybe that would be best. The concern that I had is that it wouldn't
> be clear that a package just being maintained upstream isn't
> sufficient; someone needs to be responsible for the package as it
> exists in Debian.
Part of my difficulty here is the lack of a succint t
Ben Finney writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> Maybe that would be best. The concern that I had is that it wouldn't be
>> clear that a package just being maintained upstream isn't sufficient;
>> someone needs to be responsible for the package as it exists in Debian.
> Part of my difficulty here i
31 matches
Mail list logo
