t architecture. That said you should define what is a 64 bit
architecture. On x32 (not an official architecture) for example
libc6-amd64:x32 installs files in /lib64 and libc6-amd64-dev:x32
installs file in /usr/lib64. Is it considered a 32-bit architecture or
a 64-bit architecture?
Regards,
Aurel
On 2017-08-22 09:42, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Aurelien Jarno writes:
> > On 2017-08-21 14:35, Sean Whitton wrote:
>
> >> 9.1.1
> >> Only the dynamic linker may install files to /lib64/.
>
> > How is that supposed to work for the multilib glibc? For exampl
ncourage people to just type `Build-Indep-Architecture:
> my-laptops-arch` whenever their arch:all package FTBFSs on another arch.
>
> Zooming out a bit:
>
> We do not normally add fields to Policy until they are already in use in
> the archive.
>
> Looking at codesearch.
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.4.0.1
Severity: wishlist
There is already a section about reproducibility in the debian-policy,
but it only mentions the binary packages. It might be a good idea to
add a new requirement that repeatedly building the source package in
the same environment produces
been filed months ago, but I can't find it. I've done so
> now.
>
> Note this comment from Aurelien Jarno:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=522776#342
>
> This will only be done with the approval of the release team, who
> I've copied in.
Roger Leigh a écrit :
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 08:44:10AM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> Roger Leigh a écrit :
>>> On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 09:14:47PM -0500, David Holland wrote:
>>>> Can this please get done (adding a C.UTF-8 locale)? It is absolutely
>>>&g
install /usr/bin/mailx and implement at least the
>POSIX-required interface.
>
> +9.1.1
> + Packages installing to architecture-specific subdirectories of
> + /url/lib must use the value returned by
> + dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_MULTIARCH, not by
>
>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Seconds?
>
> Seconded. The whole lib64 business was completly backward from the start.
Ping!
How can we progress on this bug? We now have bugs #720777, #720778 and
#720780 which ask for /usr/lib to be creat
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 09:08:58AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Aurelien Jarno
>
> > How can we progress on this bug? We now have bugs #720777, #720778 and
> > #720780 which ask for /usr/lib to be created if /lib exists.
> > It's something that can be implem
with /usr/local/man is relaxed to a
> --
> 1.6.3.3
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
> Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
> Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
> slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
but yes, I
> believe that's something that shouldn't break Squeeze at all.
>
That's not something allowed anymore at this period of the freeze, you
will have to get an exception from the release team first.
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
au
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.2
Severity: wishlist
A few packages in the archive are providing sources, but the .deb
packages are not rebuild from those sources. That is allowed as there
is nothing in the DFSG nor in the debian-policy that prevents a binary
package to not be built from the
-j for the make all phase, but do not for the make install phase. In the
case of the glibc, using -j for the make install phase was causing a
build failure, rarely but enough often to bother us (and the SRM team).
That's why I would advise to call make -j explicitely in the parts that
have b
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.6.2.1
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: d...@debian.org, wb-t...@buildd.debian.org
Control: affects -1 buildd.debian.org
Hi,
The debian policy, section 4.9, forbids network access for packages in
the main archive, which implicitly means they are authorized for
packa
On 2024-04-01 17:52, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 05:29:54PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Version: 4.6.2.1
> > Severity: normal
> > X-Debbugs-Cc: d...@debian.org, wb-t...@buildd.debian.org
> > Control: affects
On 2024-04-01 18:18, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 06:08:10PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > On 2024-04-01 17:52, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 05:29:54PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > > Package: debian-policy
> > &
Hi,
On 2024-04-02 09:21, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon 01 Apr 2024 at 05:29pm +02, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Version: 4.6.2.1
> > Severity: normal
> > X-Debbugs-Cc: d...@debian.org, wb-t...@buildd.debian.org
>
Hi,
On 2024-04-03 12:37, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 06:58:35AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > On 2024-04-02 09:21, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On Mon 01 Apr 2024 at 05:29pm +02, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
ckages in the main archive, required targets must not attempt
+Except for packages in the non-free archive with the ``Autobuild``
+control field unset or set to ``no``, required targets must not attempt
network access, except, via the loopback interface, to services on the
build host that have be
Hi Bill,
On 2025-02-02 23:52, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 02, 2025 at 11:40:45PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Version: 4.7.0.2
> > Severity: normal
> > Tags: patch
> >
> > Dear Policy maintainers,
> >
> >
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.7.0.2
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Dear Policy maintainers,
The section 8.4, Development files, mentions that the development
package should contain a symlink for the associated shared library
without a version number. In practice a linker script could be used
in
21 matches
Mail list logo
