On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 01:16:49PM +0100, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> Steve Langasek:
>
> >The work of revising Debian Policy includes filing a public bug report and
> >discussing the proposed changes with the Debian Developer community via
> >the debian-policy mailing list. Have you done t
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 08:57:52PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 26.10.2016 05:26, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-10-26 at 00:37:18 +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> >> On 25.10.2016 13:55, Guillem Jover wrote:
> >>> For many static libraries,
> >>> making them embeddable int
On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 07:12:19PM -0700, Phillip Hellewell wrote:
> Consider this use case for an end user with 64-bit Debian 9:
> - Compiles an executable with gcc, linking a few libraries like ICU,
> openssl, bz2, etc. Works fine.
> - Now tries to link a few of the libraries statically
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:11:35PM -0600, Rob Browning wrote:
>
> Assuming we don't find any serious problems, we're planning to switch
> emacs-defaults to point to emacs25 soon, which means that any dependency
> on "emacs" will start pulling in emacs25, not emacs24.
>
> Before that, we're planni
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 02:19:26PM -0600, Rob Browning wrote:
> Bill Allombert writes:
>
> > Do you realize the freeze is in one week, and that lot of people are
> > in holiday during this week ?
>
> My understanding is that the upcoming freeze is for the addition of new
On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 12:09:14AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> * Policy: [4.3] update autotools during build time
> Wording: Bill Allombert
> Seconded: Niels Thykier
> Seconded: Andreas Barth
> Closes: #746514
The title does not reflect what my wording is a
On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 05:20:52PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, 2016-12-29 at 15:55:27 -0600, Rob Browning wrote:
> > Actually it looks like debian/rules will also need a minor adjustment,
> > i.e. perhaps change this:
> >
> > EMACS := emacs24
> >
> > to
> >
> > EMACS := em
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 10:59:45AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
>
> > I've prepared a renewal of the conversion. And scripted it so that it
> > can be performed at any point in time regardless of most changes in the
> > sources.
>
> > This also includes several fixes to the
On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 04:06:57PM -0700, Bruce Byfield wrote:
> Hi:
>
> I am researching a story comparing traditional package formats with
> Flatpak/Snap.
>
> Several Debian developers tell me that what makes Debian what it is is
> not the .deb format but the packaging policy. Anyone care to
On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 02:39:41PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello policy editors + others,
>
> There was a DebConf talk last year about the state of Policy. I also
> note that there was mention of off-list discussion of the current
> situation in the latest "Bits from the DPL".
>
> How many
On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 03:35:00PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> hi,
>
> unsurprisingly I'm also in favor of making this policy change, now.
>
> I also believe there is quite a consensus (definitly a rough one…) in Debian
> for making this change, judging by the feedback we got at 3 DebConfs sinc
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 02:36:46PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 02:42:43PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > I really think there should be an official tool to do build packages
> > reproducibly with an interface like cowbuilder.
>
> the official t
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 02:58:27PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 04:51:47PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > the official tool to build packages reproducible in sid is called
> > > "dpkg-buildpackage" (since dpkg 1.18.16 in sid since 2016
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 03:20:54PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 05:05:36PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> a.) go to http://reproducible.debian.net/$srcpkg and see if its reproducible
> today.
As I said, I would like to check that my package build is reproducible
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 11:15:26PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:05:17AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 03:20:54PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 05:05:36PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
&g
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 03:07:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The current debian-policy package build rules generate a package using the
> low-level dpkg plumbing directly, including calling dpkg --build. This is
> something Manoj did routinely in his packages, and I subsequently
>
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 09:44:44PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I hate to ping bugs, but is there anything I can do to help this move
> forward? (The policy 4.0.0 release reminded me of this bug).
You should ask database applications maintainers to second this proposal.
Cheers,
--
Bi
On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 01:32:49PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> policy (v4.0.0) refers in section 10.4 to version v3 of the posix standard,
> which dates back to 2004. This seems terribly outdated, it isn't even any
> longer available on the opengroup web site. The latest version is 4.2 an
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 06:51:49PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.0.0.0
> Severity: normal
>
> Hello,
>
> section 10.4 says:
>
> Scripts may assume that /bin/sh implements the SUSv3 Shell Command
> Language ...
>
> This version of the standard is so outdate
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 01:37:07AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> What about this wording?:
>
> - Packages must not depend on packages with lower priority values (excluding
> - build-time dependencies). In order to ensure this, the priorities of one
> - or more packages may need to be adjusted.
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:55:15PM +0200, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The buster development cycle is open. I'm personally interested in
> working on changes that are directly related to the issue mentioned in
> the Subject. I'm sure many people will have a problem changing their
> pack
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 08:26:00AM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 20:43:10 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > Le Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 07:09:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> > > I have not looked at this at all, but this list s
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 02:08:05PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> It's been a while since the last update to this thread and proposed
> wording about the special version numbering conventions in use in Debian,
> and in the meantime things have settled out a bit more and we have a
> pretty firm consen
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 04:33:49PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> ... if the Maintainer control field names a group of people and a
> shared email address, the Uploaders field must be present and must
> contain at least one human with their personal email address. An
> exception is m
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 07:18:41AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Bill,
>
> On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 02:48:36PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > The problem is that the majority of such documentation is outdated and
> > obsolete to the point of being useless.
> > M
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 12:09:00PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> README.md says that "Wording:" is for the author of a change. However,
> I believe that the intention of the field is not to give credit to the
> author of a patch, but to indicate who sought seconds for the patch. So
> I
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:23:05PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I second Charles' patch.
Please always quote what you are seconding. This avoid confusion.
Cheers,
--
Bill.
Imagine a large red swirl here.
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:48:15PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Here is an updated diff for this bug, against the docbook version of
> the policy manual.
>
> I've also included a purely informative change which emphasises that
> packages that are team maintained in name only should be
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 04:22:41PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bill Allombert writes:
> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:48:15PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
>
> >> I've also included a purely informative change which emphasises that
> >> packages that are tea
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:55:30AM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I second all of Andreas' patches except the 5th and 8th. I've attached
> the diff to which my second applies.
>
> The 5th and 8th patches introduce a normative requirement to use
> debhelper. This is a first for policy,
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:59:40AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > An O: bug means that it is confirmed that the package is orphaned, and
> > gives permission to everyone to adopt the package immediately.
>
> So just file an an Intent-To-Orphan bug. [This why I suggested to file
> the bug against
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 01:55:01AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 10:46:19PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:59:40AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > > An O: bug means that it is confirmed that the package is orphan
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 07:00:16AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Aug 05 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > I assume you are thinking of parsing the [ name ] syntax used by many
> > teams.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Note that a prerequisite for such debian/changelog parsing would be
> > that p
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 04:58:15PM -0400, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.0.1.0
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Hi,
>
> Please clarify whether mailing lists in Maintainers/Uploaders may
> point to moderated mailing lists.
>
> Having such a list in the Maintainer field, even in t
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 07:53:51AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Version: 3.9.4.0
>
> We believe this was fixed in a recent release.
What make you believe that ?
Cheers,
--
Bill.
Imagine a large red swirl here.
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 04:08:47PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> control: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
> control: usertag = normative proposal
>
> Hello,
>
> Proposal:
>
> This is what Holger and I think we should add to Policy, after
> readability tweaks:
>
> Packages sh
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 08:06:46PM -0400, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> > How do you define "moderated" ?
>
> I can't really, sorry. I guess getting a "Your message awaits moderator
> approval" quasi-bounce… but that's not exactly right.
If the list is moderated correctly, the message will g
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 07:49:55PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Also what you are saying ("a package that is reproducible according to the
> policy definition must not show up as non-reproducible in tracker/DDPO based
> on results from the reproducible infrastructure") doesnt really makes sense:
>
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:00:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes:
>
> > Future policy versions might change this definition, but whatever latest
> > policy states has to be the definition used by both packages and the
> > reproducible builds team.
>
> > Another example is that
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 09:36:04AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Note that, for most developers, this is pretty much equivalent to the
> current situation with FTBFS on, say, s390 architectures. Or even issues
> with running under whichever init system is not the one the maintainer
> personally use
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 09:30:23AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> As Policy Editor (a delegated position), based on my read of project
> consensus including in-person verification of that consensus at DebConf
> 17, I am formally declaring that I believe this change has consensus
> despite your opposi
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:14:53PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> If you have specific wording suggestions that you believe would bring this
> Policy requirement closer in line with what we're already doing in the
> project (and which has gotten us to 94% reproducible already), please make
> them.
T
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:19:47PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > But as a technical document, it is lacking practical recommendation
> > for maintainers how to make sure their package build reproducibly
>
> The practica
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 05:40:23PM -0700, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> > Now compare with reproducible build. You get some error report you
> > cannot reproduce, do some change following the help provided and
> > hope for the best. Then some day later you get the same error
> > report.
>
> I'
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 02:37:25PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> roucaries bastien writes:
>
> > you call the rules with something (using shebang or directly) make -f
> > somepath/package/debian/rules, uscan need to be excuted on
> > somepath/package/.
>
> Oh, I see the edge case this is trying t
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:51:34PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> > On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 08:55:45AM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
>
> >> No idea about apt, but dpkg's maintainer told me (shortly after having
> >> filed this bug) that dpkg supported it basically since
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:52:27AM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> According to codesearch.d.n, get-orig-source is implemented by less than
> 3000 source packages. This is not very low, but neither a high adoption
> rate. It certainly makes using get-orig-source somewhat useless on a
> distribution-s
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:38:49PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:28:42AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > get-orig-source and watch files serve a different purpose.
> >
> > get-orig-source is used to build the .orig. tarball from the true
> >
On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 01:00:14PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Jérémy Lal dijo [Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 07:46:43PM +0200]:
> > It might be a good idea to make policy more explicit about downloads during
> > build.
>
> I completely agree. This led me to look at #813471 ("network access to
> the loopba
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 03:30:37PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.1.1.0
>
> Policy § 5.6.11, after describing the meaning of the digits in the
> policy version, reads:
>
> | Thus only the first three components of the policy version are
> | significant in the S
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 10:22:48AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Oct 04 2017, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
> > I include it because it makes it unambiguous which version of policy
> > the team referred to when preparing the package. Micro policy
> > releases are not supposed to cha
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 02:16:48PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> Source: debian-policy
> Version: 4.1.1.1
>
> I recently introduced support for nodoc for libgdamm5.0 in its
> packaging branch (not uploaded to unstable yet) [1]. Since there is
> only one arch-indep package, the -doc package, there
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 08:48:28PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Some people in debian-mentors will make very absolute statements about
> never including unreleased versions in debian/changelog and always
> consolidating versions, and will give the impression that literally
> everyone in Debian h
On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 06:19:10PM -0700, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 07:22:45PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 17 2017, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> >
> > > Package: debian-policy Version: 4.1.1.1 Severity: normal
> > >
> > > Section 4.4 explains quite a bit about deb
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 12:31:09PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sean Whitton wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 06 2017, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
> >>Thus, every program that launches an editor or pager must use
> >>the EDITOR or PAGER environment variable to determine the editor
> >>o
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:34:15AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Sean Whitton dijo [Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:49:59AM -0700]:
> > I am seeking seconds for the following patch to close this bug, which I
> > think is uncontroversial at this point.
> >
> > > @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ All command scripts, inclu
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 02:08:37PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Bill,
>
> On Mon, Nov 27 2017, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > Before we make it a must, is there a lintian test for it ?
>
> I am not sure.
>
> > How may packages need to be fixed ?
>
&g
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 09:10:12PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:34:15AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > Sean Whitton dijo [Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:49:59AM -0700]:
> > > I am seeking seconds for the following patch to close this bug, which I
> > &g
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:01:08PM -0500, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> As others have said, running 'git log' is far more useful than a
> complete changelog and in my experience, most projects these days
> outside of GNU don't bother shipping changelogs.
>
> Most of my Debian and Ubuntu work involves GNO
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 08:45:51PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bill Allombert writes:
>
> > git log might be more useful in some situation and extremly inconvenient
> > in some others (to start with it require network access and cloning the
> > full project history).
&
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:29:50AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 12/1/17 11:19, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Is there some reason why exacdt standardisation of the filenames is
> > necessary here ? For most of the uses I can think of, it is OK to
> > look in a handful of files to see which one mig
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 12:13:25PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Dec 08 2017, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/policy/ch-docs.rst b/policy/ch-docs.rst index
> > dc02bc6..1de221f 100644 --- a/policy/ch-docs.rst +++
> > b/policy/ch-docs.rst @@ -208,11 +208,12 @@ important be
On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:26:26AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Bill,
>
> On Sat, Dec 09 2017, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > So, what is the percentage of packages under this license ? This has
> > always been the criterium used to put it in common-licenses.
>
&
On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 11:53:51AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Dec 09 2017, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > See the file tools/license-count in the policy git repo and look up
> > the debian-policy list archive for previous statistics.
>
> Thank
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 08:52:54AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> > We always distribute the source code along with the binary packages.
> > This condition would still be satisfied. If it works for Red Hat /
> > Fedora it should work for Debian too.
>
> Do you argue, then, that the act of copying
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 07:59:15PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
> No, this is entirely about our most precious resources: time and human
> beings
>
> You also have to format the license in such a way that it complies with
> copyright format 1.0. For instance that means you have to put dots on
> e
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:49:21AM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
> I don't think there is a reason to be worried. But I do have an opinion
> and I am expressing it. I believe I am not the only one who feels that
> we need to rethink debian/copyright.
...
> In my opinion the creation of automated
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 01:56:44PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
> > Markus Koschany wrote:
>
> >> as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to request that more DFSG
> >> licenses are added to /usr/share/common-licenses and that package
> >> maintainers are allowed to
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 06:57:55PM +, Sean Whitton wrote:
> control: tag -1 -patch +pending
>
> Hello,
>
> > One would need to check whether get-orig-source use uscan for repacking
> > or if it only use uscan for downloading and then repack manually.
>
> Good point, but note that such cases
On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 02:24:46PM +, Sean Whitton wrote:
> control: severity -1 normal
>
> Thanks for summarising exactly when these tags are triggered, Mattia.
>
> Let me first say exactly what change I'd recommend:
>
> - out-of-date-standards-version should be I: or P: instead of W:
> - a
On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 01:43:08PM +0100, Javier Serrano Polo wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.1.3.0
> Severity: wishlist
> X-Debbugs-CC: a...@debian.org, ballo...@debian.org, spwhit...@spwhitton.name,
> r...@debian.org
>
> Copyright information, like changelogs and manuals, is not te
On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 02:32:55PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 01:43:08PM +0100, Javier Serrano Polo wrote:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Version: 4.1.3.0
> > Severity: wishlist
> > X-Debbugs-CC: a...@debian.org, ballo...@debian.org,
>
On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 06:56:59PM +0100, Javier Serrano Polo wrote:
> X-Debbugs-CC: a...@debian.org, ballo...@debian.org, spwhit...@spwhitton.name,
> r...@debian.org
>
> El dc 07 de 02 de 2018 a les 17:31 +0100, Bill Allombert va escriure:
> > ... However will have to have a
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 06:54:57PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi Gustavo,
>
> frankly, and really just curious, but… what's the point of this
> backport? you can always read the latest version at
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ (ok, I see this needs network,
> but…)
You can also do
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 07:56:40PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> Node.js expects pure js modules to be installed at /usr/lib/nodejs but
> javascript libraries are installed at /usr/share/javascript
Why should pure js module be in /usr/lib instead of /usr/share ?
Cheers,
--
Bill.
Imagine a lar
On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 02:48:40PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> > * Some Javascript modules are very small, resulting in lots of small
> > packages
>
> I think we need to balance the small packages concern with number of
> times such small packages are used.
>
> node-has was rejected recently
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 12:00:29PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Adrian,
>
> Thank you for your continued effort to get this bug resolved.
>
> On Sat, Mar 10 2018, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> >> Please expand on why you think this is the way we have to proceed.
> >
> > you skipped the part of my
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 03:18:32PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 10:58:53AM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> > >
> > > Imho Sean's last mail sums it up pretty well
> > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=515856#94
> >
> > I have read this, but it does not convi
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 03:49:17PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Bill Allombert writes ("Re: Bug#515856: Debian Policy 4.1.4.0 released"):
> > I wonder, maybe uscan could support debian/get-orig-source as a last
> > resort ?
>
> Only if you pass --trust-source o
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 02:54:02AM +0800, 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson wrote:
> SW> Could you explain why you think this is needed, please? What problems
> SW> could be caused by a package being listed in more than one field, and
> SW> what problems could be caused by forbidding that?
>
> Please have your po
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:21:47AM +0800, 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson wrote:
> BA> As I see it, it is not a bug, but a quality of implementation issue
> BA> that could be flagged by lintian, but does not need to appear in policy.
>
> BA> Most of the time it will be an oversight or caused by a change in
> BA>
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 02:18:10PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.1.4.1
> Severity: minor
>
> I did this, with recommends enabled, in a bare-ish sid shroot, and it
> installed
>python-numpy(wtf!)
>libavahi-common3(libavahi:amd64 is sadly
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 08:29:35PM +0200, Aurélien COUDERC wrote:
> Dear maintainers,
>
> I noticed that developers-reference git repository is not migrated to salsa
> yet.
> Are you interesting in me doing this ?
>
> If so can you create a repo for it and give me access to it as coucouf-guest
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 12:22:26PM +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, Jun 10 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > Seconded, but:
> >
> >> > +This information may be used to file bug reports automatically if
> >> > your +package becomes too much out of date.
> >
> > Maybe this sentence shou
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 01:37:11PM +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> On Mon, Dec 25 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure where we landed with this, but it feels like the
> > single-HTML output from Sphnix is kind of broken, and publishing that
> > on the web site has caused vari
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 03:01:51PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 01:37:11PM +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 25 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not sure where we landed with this, but it fee
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 11:28:11PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 at 22:37:04 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > I assume if we allow /usr/libexec, we also need to support
> > /usr/libexec/x86_64-linux-gnu/ etc. ?
>
> I'm not sure I see why we would? Pl
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 03:35:09PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 13:43:36 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 14 2018, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > >> +This command
> > >> +allows the ``debian/rules`` target to run particular subcommands under
> > >
> > >^^ lintian
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:58:28PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes ("Re: Bug#891216: seconded 891216: Requre d-devel
> consultation for epoch bump"):
> > Incorrect epochs are a nuisance at best.
>
> The problem is that they are a permanent nuisance. This discussion
> was promp
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:01:05AM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
> The latest version of lintian gives a warning about packages named
> "xfonts-*" being anywhere but in the "x11" section. This change was
> made in response to bug #878609. The decision for that modification
> seems to have been made ba
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 01:35:49PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Not really, I do not want to use README.source or something like this.
> I have a *personal* policy: I will not sponsor any package if there is
> no code I could run that recreates the source tarball. May be I'm to
> strict and the
On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 09:54:07AM +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Laura,
>
> On Wed, Jan 03 2018, Sean Whitton wrote:
>
> > In #876075, we are considering dropping singlehtml output from the
> > debian-policy package. There are numerous other bugs -- such as all
> > footnote hyperlinks being
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 03:24:12PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 08:08:55PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > Given that it seems we have a strong project consensus on always
> > including the field, seeking seconds to make Policy reflect that:
> >
> > > diff --git a/policy/ch
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:35:48AM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> control: tag -1 +patch
>
> - I have chosen to include the recommendation not to install both the
> changelog and the release notes if both are available. I've done this
> using the term 'recommended', which is the weakest require
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 07:50:59AM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Bill,
>
> On Sun 22 Jul 2018 at 07:45PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > I have to disagree with that recommendation. It all depends on how the
> > changelog is worded. Since we do not include a
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 08:09:48PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Sean Whitton writes:
>
> > It's become clear that we do not have consensus on recommending that
> > only the release notes be installed, and not also the changelog.
>
> I'm happy to see this go into Policy, but I find it unfortunate
On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 06:15:54PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu 02 Aug 2018 at 10:14AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
>
> > In the past, it has been asserted that maintainers are required to
> > paste the text written by upstream that tells the consumer that they
> > may redistrib
On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 04:35:14PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On 08/04/2018 07:14 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Sean Whitton writes ("Beginnings of a patch to add netbase to
> > build-essential"):
> >> Ian also thinks that package builds should be able to access the
> >> information normally cont
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 06:10:43PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Stuart Prescott writes:
>
> > In counterpoint, I'll add to that 4169 packages register 5318 sets of
> > documents in doc-base. To me, that says that we've got a lot of packages
> > who are advertising their documentation this way.
>
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 01:04:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Andrey Rahmatullin writes ("Bug#910783: Remove doc-base recommendation"):
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Version: 4.2.1.2
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > It seems to me that the consensus is that doc-base is not actually useful
> > and
>
1 - 100 of 1081 matches
Mail list logo
