Package: packaging-manual
Version: 2.4.1.2
Severity: wishlist
The most recent version of packaging-manual is 2.4.1.2, while the
most recent version of debian-policy is 2.5.0.0. I believe there has
been agreement on the policy list that these documents would maintain
parallel version numbers
Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The most recent version of packaging-manual is 2.4.1.2, while
> > the most recent version of debian-policy is 2.5.0.0. I believe
&g
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If indeed people think that the version numbers of two
> different packages should remain in sync, please justify having them
> as separate packages in the first place.
>
> If you think that this is what you want to do please peopose
> t
Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If "do not modify a configuration file of another package" is just a
> > general rule, it should be clear how many exceptions to the rule are
> > there.
>
> There are no exceptions.
I think there is at least one exception:
(from version 2.
I believe that part of policy was put in for a purpose, and I
think it has legitimate uses. A developer who uses it must be careful
to avoid harmful consequences, but in some cases it is necessary to
avoid disrupting messages during installation, and to avoid user
surprise.
Bob
Joey Hess <[
Package: debian-policy
Version: 2.5.0.0
The following typo has been noted in policy.text.gz:
Section 2.1.1., first line:
The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) as is our definition of
s/as is/is/ ^^ ^^
Bob
--
_
|_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilli
Package: debian-policy
Version: 2.5.0.0
Section 4.4 of the packaging manual refers to "Csh Programming
Considered Harmful", on rtfm.mit.edu, in
/pub/usenet-by-group/comp.unix.programmer. This file is not now in
that directory.
This reference should be deleted, or the URL updated.
Bob
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm also willing to volenteer to post weekly status updates of recent
> proposals and amandments if people want that to happen. I'm already in the
> position of reading all my debian mail in the mindset of trying to summarize
> it for Debian Weekly News, so
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> contrib and non-free aren't part of Debian
> and in fact contrib is no longer distributed with our CDs.
Say What!!! Disc 2 of the Official CD Set has a contrib
directory. The Packages file in that directory lists 97
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I hereby formally object to this proposal, as I think this is
> something that merely add bureaucracy to the list, and shall fdo
> little to actually increase throughtput.
>
> The Debian policy list has so far been a fairly
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 04:10:42AM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier écrivait:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Severity: wishlist
> > Version: 3.0.1.1
> >
> > Most configuration files have manpages, but not all. It would be useful
> > if every config file (in
> Data section (#38902)
> * Consensus.
> * Proposed on 3 Jun 1999 by Darren O. Benham; seconded by Peter S
> Galbraith and Peter Makholm.
> * "Since there is interest in packaging census data, maps, genome
> data and other huge datasets I and since most people agreed that
> dropp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>
> Franklin Belew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The dangling preposition in the last sentence.
> > "the distribution this package is included in" should read
> > "the distribution in which this package is included."
>
> Of course, Shakespea
Seconded, although I don't see much need for examples in this
case.
Bob
--
_
|_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|_) (_) |_) Palm City, FL USAPGP Key ID: A8E40EB9
Anthony Towns writes:
>
> --FLPM4o+7JoHGki3m
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us
Anthony Towns writes:
> It could be used something like:
>
> * nothing in optional or above can conflict
I think this would be a mistake. This would make all MTAs,
except the one anointed as standard, become extra. I think conflicts
should be permitted in common, optional and extra
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 04:14:47PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > s/packages should/packages conforming to policy version 3.2.0 or greater
> > should/
> >
> > "should" referring to the Policy definition, meaning that this is optional
> > (though rec
"Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Error (E:) -- violate a MUST
> Warning (W:) -- violate a SHOULD
> XXX (?:) -- a MAY is not followed
There should be no Lintian messages regarding MAY items. If any
such thing is considered to warrant a Lintian Warning or Error
message
"Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In the case of emacs20:
>
> bah. The binary is 3 MB large. The package is 28 MB large. You could
> leave the X-capable binary in emacs20 and move everything else,
> including a terminal only emacs-20.7 binary to emacs20-base or
> emacs
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [I read the policy mailing list; while you may feel your points are so
> important that they merit my attention in my personal inbox, there is no
> need to CC me.]
The headers of this message include:
Reply-To: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTE
Policy version 3.5.3.0, Section 11.1. Binaries, includes the
following recommendation:
If the environment variable `DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS'
contains the string `debug', compile the software with debugging
information (usually this involves adding the `-g' flag t
gcc apparently creates sections `.note' and `.comment' when compiling
binaries. Running either `strip' or the -s option to install does not
remove these redundant sections. Lintian issues a warning
`binary-has-unneeded-section' when it detects these sections in a
binary.
I don't think
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Watson) writes:
> No, if DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nostrip, then the value of
> $(findstring nostrip,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS) will be nostrip, and
> ifeq (,nostrip) is false ... thus binaries won't be stripped. The
> multiple negatives are a bit on the confusing side.
Thanks for
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 04:44:24PM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> > gcc apparently creates sections `.note' and `.comment' when compiling
> > binaries. Running either `strip' or the -s option to inst
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.0
Severity: wishlist
There are at least 3 dict clients in Debian - dict, gdict, and
kdict. I propose that a virtual package name dict-client be adopted
to refer to any of these. I have posted a message to the -devel list,
copied to the maintainers of th
On 08 Dec 2001 I filed bug#122996 against debian-policy proposing
that dict-client be added to the "Authoritative List of Virtual
Package Names", and posted a message to debian-devel proposing this
virtual package name.
On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
questioned th
Any packages uploaded to unstable now are (presumably) intended
for woody+1. Is it appropriate to omit the /usr/doc/
symlinks in packages being uploaded currently, or should this wait for
a post-woody release of debian-policy?
Bob
--
_
|_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard <[EMAIL P
On 09 Jan 2002, I posted the following message:
> To: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
> Subject: dict-client virtual package name
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 09 Jan 2002 11:27:
"Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2003-01-15 at 02:54, Adam Heath wrote:
>> In doing this, I found several packages that had large quantities of
>> documentation in a non-doc type package. This meant that all installs of
>> said
>> package had that docu
Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>dictdOops, no dependency on adduser
dictd has depended on adduser since 1.7.1-1, which was uploaded 9
July 2002 .
Regards,
Bob
--
_
|_) _ |_Robert D. Hilliard<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way
Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> many packages seem to contain .orig.tar.gz files which may or may not be
> directly related to the files actually available from upstream. That is
> unfortunate.
>
> I think that it would make sense to add a requirement to Policy that
> the
Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Christian" == Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Christian> Yes. Note, that this is just my interpretation of
> Christian> current policy, and I'm no lawyer. However, no lawyer
> Christian> has shown up yet to prove I'm wro
Section 5.6, Copyright information, says:
Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its
copyright and distribution license in the file
/usr/doc//copyright. This file must neither be
compressed nor be a symbolic link.
It is common practice for packages
I have a general and a specific question.
First, the general question - The Policy Manual 2.4.1.0 contains
the same requirements regarding the FSSTND as previous versions: "The
location of all installed files and directories must comply fully
with the Linux Filesystem Structure (FSSTND).
Hi,
This sounds like a mistake to me. Presently the debian
maintainers are responsible for providing manpages for their packages
if the upstream source doesn't contain them. Providing some in the
manpages package would dilute this responsibility, and would mean the
the maintainer, who presum
> Cc: Debian Developers list ,
> Debian policy list
> From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 27 Apr 1998 14:47:23 -0500
> Lines: 44
>
> Hi,
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm. I think I like the idea of the policy documents being the
> law, and the techn
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why do you think that these are the reasons?
>
> You might be right, but I'd like to know your reasons before agreeing
> that these are the primary reasons for bugs not being fixed.
There are a nuamber of sub-threads in this thread using the same
h
Hi,
Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd like to suggest that the issue be raised on debian-policy at some
^
> stage, preferably before the package was released. Similar to the way we
> request developers to notify debian-
Oliver Elphick writes:
> Now, section 2.3.8 of the Policy Manual states that we should minimise
> interactive prompting while installing; it does not even contemplate the
> idea of prompting in the removal scripts.
That section of the Policy Manual says, "Packages should try to
minimise the
While testing the install disks v2.0.6, menu failed to install
due to unsatisfied dependencies. (This is the subject of another
message).
Since menu was not configured, man-db, psmisc, bc, and dc could not
be configured because the postinst called update-menu, resulting in
the followin
I can not find this documented anywhere, but I have always
understood that policy was supposed to be the represent a consensus of
the developer's views after discussion on debian-devel. Once the
constitution is adopted, I believe the Technical Committee should pass
on new mandatory policy ite
Luis Francisco Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bob Hilliard wrote:
> > I can not find this documented anywhere, but I have always
> > understood that policy was supposed to be the represent a consensus of
> > the developer's views after discu
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would prefer that the policy mention that,in rare cases,
> there are exceptions to the rule, and mention the debugging libraries
> as an example. This would make the policy more novice friendly, and
> make it easier for the next person who h
Robert Woodcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Manoj probably won't like this, since it borders on giving legal advice, but
> here goes:
No, he didn't like it, and for good reason.
> Instead of splitting non-free into different directories like cd-ok (etc etc
> etc), why can't we put anot
43 matches
Mail list logo
