Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.0.0
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Dear all,
as promised one year and a half ago
(http://lists.debian.org/20090201011604.GF13843%40kunpuu.plessy.org), here is a
patch that removes the mention of the use of substvars for dpkg-source and
dpkg-genchanges.
t a/poli
Hi,
On 19/07/10 10:03, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.9.0.0
> Severity: normal
> Tags: patch
>
> Dear all,
>
> as promised one year and a half ago
> (http://lists.debian.org/20090201011604.GF13843%40kunpuu.plessy.org), here is
> a
> patch that removes the mention of
On 19/07/10 07:20, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.9.0.0
> Severity: wishlist
> Tags: patch
>
> Dear all,
>
> during the discussion about team uploads (http://wiki.debian.org/TeamUpload),
> it was proposed to send a patch to the Policy, to include a footnotes that
> re
> What other implementations of WSGI on the server side are there in Debian
> besides libapache2-mod-wsgi? I want to get a feel for how broad the usage
> of the virtual package would be.
gunicorn, python-pastescript, python-flup, python-cherrypy3, etc.
see http://wsgi.org/wsgi/Servers
--
Piotr O
* Russ Allbery [100718 19:30]:
> Ideally, it would be nice to be able to sort out packages by priority and,
> from that, build, say, a CD set of only the important and higher packages
> and know that it's self-contained. In practice, I suspect that we have
> enough packages with problems here tha
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:41:54PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Russ Allbery [100718 19:30]:
> > Ideally, it would be nice to be able to sort out packages by priority and,
> > from that, build, say, a CD set of only the important and higher packages
> > and know that it's self-contained. In
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:41:54PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> The difference between optional and extra is indeed mood today. But I
> guess that is mostly because dh_make is making everything optional
> instead of extra by default...
Most packages can be "optional", since they don't in
Hi!
On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 17:03:21 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> t a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 0b3c1a1..597100e 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -2190,10 +2190,9 @@ endif
> Variable substitutions: debian/substvars
>
>
> - When dpkg-gencontrol,
> -
Steve Langasek writes:
> This particular wording allows for the non-free package to be first in
> the list of alternatives, which I think is clearly incorrect. The
> intent AIUI is to avoid installation of a package in main ever causing a
> non-free package to be pulled in automatically, regardl
Ludovic Brenta writes:
> Yes, the information is still current and correct. (One does not change
> a sound design decision that has proven its worth for years... :) )
Okay, here is a proposed patch which implements the request in this bug
report. Objections or seconds?
diff --git a/policy.sgm
Hi,
On 19/07/10 18:34, Russ Allbery wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 6943397..3a70475 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -5389,6 +5389,14 @@ Replaces: mail-transport-agent
> (ld) when compiling packages, as it will only look for
> libgdbm.so when
Russ Allbery writes:
> Here, many years later, is a proposed patch implementing that, omitting
> www-browser because it's not (yet) documented by Policy and adding
> x-terminal-emulator.
> Objections or seconds?
This change has now been merged for the next release.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debia
Bernhard R. Link writes ("Re: Priority dependence"):
> Calculating a dependency closure is neither an easy nor an task with
> a well-defined outcome. Starting with more data makes that both more
> easy and more likely to come to deterministic results (with a good
> enough starting set, most depende
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:
> One of the first steps to be able to address this bug is to talk about
> these files in a coherent way. This raises the unfortunate spectre of
> the repeated use of "control file" for both files in the control.tar.gz
> member of a *.deb archive and for files formatted like
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes:
> On 13/07/10 04:11, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> +
>> + The run-time shared library must be placed in a package
>> + whose name changes whenever the SONAME of the shared
>> + library changes. This allows several versions of the shared
>> + librar
Hi,
On 19/07/10 18:49, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Now that the terminology is in, the patch to address the normative issue
> in this bug is short and simple. Objections or seconds?
>
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index c0415c1..9aca16c 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:49:31 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index c0415c1..9aca16c 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -8014,6 +8014,12 @@ endscript
>
>
>
> +
> + Control information files should be owned 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 '
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:
> Hm, but actually, isn't the magic of "should" appropriate here? If a
> package is unmaintained but not orphaned, that *is* a bug, which is what
> "should" means. Admittedly, Policy normally only governs the contents
> of packages and not procedural issues in Debian like o
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 '
Charles Plessy writes:
> during the discussion about team uploads
> (http://wiki.debian.org/TeamUpload), it was proposed to send a patch to
> the Policy, to include a footnotes that reminds that sometimes the first
> line of a changelog has a special meaning, and point at the Developer's
> Refere
Charles Plessy writes:
> as promised one year and a half ago
> (http://lists.debian.org/20090201011604.GF13843%40kunpuu.plessy.org),
> here is a patch that removes the mention of the use of substvars for
> dpkg-source and dpkg-genchanges.
Thanks, this has been merged for the next release. (I we
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 '
Piotr Ożarowski writes:
>> What other implementations of WSGI on the server side are there in
>> Debian besides libapache2-mod-wsgi? I want to get a feel for how broad
>> the usage of the virtual package would be.
> gunicorn, python-pastescript, python-flup, python-cherrypy3, etc.
> see http://
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 '
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 '
We've accumulated quite a list of changes for the next release, and I'd
like to get out another Debian Policy release before Debconf. Since I'm
going to be travelling weekend after next (to Debconf), that means I'm
currently tentatively planning a release next weekend.
As usual, this depends on w
[Russ Allbery, 2010-07-19]
> Piotr Ożarowski writes:
> >> What other implementations of WSGI on the server side are there in
> >> Debian besides libapache2-mod-wsgi? I want to get a feel for how broad
> >> the usage of the virtual package would be.
>
> > gunicorn, python-pastescript, python-flup
* Russ Allbery , 2010-07-19, 09:49:
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index c0415c1..9aca16c 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -8014,6 +8014,12 @@ endscript
+
+ Control information files should be owned by root:root
+ and either mode 64
Russ Allbery writes:
> Ludovic Brenta writes:
>
>> Yes, the information is still current and correct. (One does not
change
>> a sound design decision that has proven its worth for years... :) )
>
> Okay, here is a proposed patch which implements the request in this bug
> report. Object
On snein 11 July 2010, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:22:28AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Guillem Jover writes:
> > > On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 08:59:24 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > >> +postrotate
> > >> +[ -f /var/run/foo.pid ] && kill -s HUP `cat /var/run/foo.p
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal
This sentence in Policy 2.5 is too prohibitive:
"Systems with only the required packages are probably unusable, but they
do have enough functionality to allow the sysadmin to boot and install
more software."
I would suggest a more open wording:
"Systems wit
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 Neil,
On moandei 19 July 2010, Neil Williams wrote:
> This sentence in Policy 2.5 is too prohibitive:
> "Systems with only the required packages are probably unusable, but they
> do have enough functionality to allow the sysadmin to boot and install
> more software."
>
> I would suggest a more
On 19/07/10 22:22, Neil Williams wrote:
> This sentence in Policy 2.5 is too prohibitive:
> "Systems with only the required packages are probably unusable, but they
> do have enough functionality to allow the sysadmin to boot and install
> more software."
> I have many systems with only Priority:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 23:05:39 +0200
Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> Hi Neil,
>
> On moandei 19 July 2010, Neil Williams wrote:
> > This sentence in Policy 2.5 is too prohibitive:
> > "Systems with only the required packages are probably unusable, but
> > they do have enough functionality to allow the sy
Le Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:45:29AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> while we have a lot of changes, they're mostly documentation of
> existing practices
Hi Russ,
I am actually wondering if such changes desserve an entry in the upgrading
checklist, since no package need to be changed. If the che
Charles Plessy writes:
> I am actually wondering if such changes desserve an entry in the
> upgrading checklist, since no package need to be changed. If the
> checklist is exhaustive, it makes it redundant with the changelog. As a
> maintainer who often reads the checklist, I would appreciate if
40 matches
Mail list logo
