Hi!
On Wed, 2016-10-26 at 00:37:18 +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> On 25.10.2016 13:55, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > I don't think the reasoning there is sound (as I've mentioned
> > elsewhere), and the policy bug should be closed.
> >
> > Switching from n
On Mon, 2017-01-02 at 09:53:17 +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 11:15:36PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I massaged the wording a bit. Here's what I committed for the next
> > release:
> > + Each binary package built from this source package has a
> > + corre
Hi!
On Sat, 2016-12-31 at 19:04:08 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Florian Weimer writes:
> > It seems to me that a requirement is missing from the policy that
> > binaries (DSOs and executables) which are intended to run on the host
> > must be located in a binary package, and the architecture of t
policy.log, but I don't see anything obvious there. :/
BTW I don't install recommends by default on my systems.
Thanks,
Guillem
From 68b667376ad4d0e5c91b07123d5c52bfc2f0d4e9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Guillem Jover
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:05:06 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Fix DebianDoc-SGML
Hi!
On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 19:15:57 +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: normal
> [
> "version" is a horrible search term, hopefully I did not miss any
> other report about this.
> ]
I think this is actually #542288? But I'll let the editors decide.
> Over time,
Hi!
On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 11:39:01 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
> > I've actually changed my mind over this one since seconding #542288,
> > which I should probably unsecond. I think this is broken, and an NMU
> > of a native packages should inste
e're already using Markdown for something else.
Perfect, let me know if you want something else changed/improved in
that patch.
> Guillem Jover writes:
> > I've only build tested the specific files, because I'm getting at least
> > two build failures, the first due to
Hi!
On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 11:38:10 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> By extracting attached file into source and running "make", it will do
> the magic of converting to DocBok XML and then to PDF etc.
> (Need the sid version of the latest debiandoc-sgml)
>
> Technically, conversion is ready whenever you
Hi!
On Sat, 2017-01-14 at 21:30:14 +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 at 11:32:09 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Bill Allombert writes:
> > > I am concerned that DocBook is much too complex to be used for Debian
> > > policy. We need to people to write patches without trouble and
Hi!
On Sat, 2017-01-14 at 10:59:45 -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
On Mon, 2017-01-16 at 00:53:43 +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 20:51:07 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
>
> > Subject: [PATCH 1/7] Use entities instead of literal <, > and &
>
> It seems you've converted some '>' to '>'
On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 13:16:25 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
> > I've found the problem with the wrong spacing, which was due to tidy(1),
> > I've played now with xmllint(1) and pandoc(1), but disabled the initial
> > cleanup for now (branch up
Hi!
On Sat, 2017-03-25 at 21:25:14 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
> > Sounds good to me. I can probably check several of those over time
> > once this is merged in.
>
> > In which case I can rebase, check that everything is fine, and resend
&g
On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 04:47:33 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> I've updated the Build-Depends, and removed the recently introduced
> ghostscript, so the new changelog entry might need to to be removed.
It seems I missed also bsdmainutils.
> I think that to be able to fix some of t
t this information is
somewhat present already in §1.3.
Thanks,
Guillem
From ee07a4c3c8fcbcc7c05c7cec7f97b6e6690cf54a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Guillem Jover
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:24:16 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/8] Make tidy not convert character entities to their UTF-8
form
The output docu
Hi!
On Sun, 2017-04-30 at 18:35:29 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Charles Plessy writes:
>
> >> -
> >> -Version 3.9.8.0
> >> +
> >> +Version 3.9.8
> >>
> >>
> >>Released April, 2016.
> >> @@ -318,8 +329,8 @@
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -
> >> -Version 3.9.7.0
Hi!
diff --git a/upgrading-checklist.xml b/upgrading-checklist.xml
index ec17af8..83e7c75 100644
--- a/upgrading-checklist.xml
+++ b/upgrading-checklist.xml
[…]
@@ -1438,11 +1449,11 @@
-
-Version 3.8.4.0
+
+Version 3.8.4
- Release Jan 2010.
+ Released Janu
On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 18:58:42 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 02:19:32PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > diff --git a/upgrading-checklist.xml b/upgrading-checklist.xml
> > index ec17af8..83e7c75 100644
> > --- a/upgrading-checklist.xml
> > ++
On Sun, 2017-05-14 at 15:20:54 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 05:05:36PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > OK, but how can I check that my package build is reproducible before
> > uploading
> > it ?
>
> in general you cannot find out with 100% certainity whether a given sour
Hi!
On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 11:22:36 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> There's a set of stuff that's sort of in-between, where I feel comfortable
> just making the change as a Policy Editor without approval, but where it
> seems worth having some more public record so that people can disagree if
> I make
Hi!
On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 14:23:26 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
> > I therefore intend to:
>
> > - Move all the formatting build machinery into the top-level Makefile.
> > - Convert the packaging to dh with a minimal debian/rules file.
> > - Move the doc-base registration fi
---
Makefile | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 1bcd84c..c2f3a97 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -7,10 +7,10 @@
# independent of their Debian packaging in the debian directory.
# Basic package information.
-PACKAGE := $
---
.gitignore | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index 745e7e3..964597f 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -9,7 +9,10 @@
/debconf_spec/debconf_specification.html
/debconf_spec/debconf_specification.txt
/debconf_spec/include/version.xml
+/deb
On Sun, 2017-06-11 at 20:46:23 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 06:51:49PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Version: 4.0.0.0
> > Severity: normal
> > section 10.4 says:
> >
> > Scripts may assume that /bin/sh implements the SUSv3 Shell Command
> >
Hi!
On Sat, 2017-06-24 at 09:57:33 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.0.0.2
> Severity: wishlist
> A discussion in #865720 got me thinking that there is some data maintained
> in Policy that would be useful to have in a machine-readable format. The
> things that hav
On Sun, 2017-06-25 at 16:13:39 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
> > On Sat, 2017-06-24 at 09:57:33 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> - The list of archive sections and their descriptions
>
> > I think this belongs on each archive providing those, alon
Hi!
On Wed, 2014-08-20 at 09:44:45 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> There are cases when you want to add it explicitly, e.g. when someone
> comes up with a new possible value for it that is not automatically
> added yet.
>
> Testsuite: mynewthing
>
> or even
>
> Testsuite: autopkgtest, mynewthi
On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 19:10:36 -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 12:54:15AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Except for the last dpkg which should probably be dpkg-source, I do
> > like this version better.
> >
> > Also perhaps worth mentioning that
Hi!
On Mon, 2017-08-07 at 20:26:41 -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
> Also, where signature files are desired, I think it would be beneficial to
> also accept binary ".sig" files as an alternative to ".asc" files, for
> example as produced with "gpg -b".
There is no need for that, you can convert from AS
Hi!
[ Daniel CCed, please see the thread starting at
<https://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2017/08/msg00201.html>. ]
On Sat, 2017-08-12 at 15:32:22 -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 5:13 AM, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 10:48:08AM +0200, Guil
Hi!
On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 00:22:43 -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 1:48 AM, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-08-07 at 20:26:41 -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
> > > Also, where signature files are desired, I think it would be beneficial
> > > to also
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.0.0
Hi!
At least on the PDF output, the section numbers are wrong, as there
are now two chapters that include the old sections.
The appendices are also not easily distinguishable from the other
sections as they also use numbers intead of say letters.
Thanks,
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.0.0
Hi!
This version has lost the distinction between a single policy html and
the one with different files per chapter. This will break links.
Thanks,
Guillem
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.0.0
Hi!
It seems that an html.tar.gz has leaked (?) into the .deb, which
contains the single single html file plus ancillary files. It is
not clear whether this is an intentional change as it's not listed
on the changelog. It looks at least a bit redundant.
Th
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.0.0
Hi!
While I'm not a very big fan of info files (even when using pinfo),
it seems for now it's the only way to get section numbers w/o having
to use a browser. :/ So while using it I noticed that it has been
installed with an extremely generic name, for some
Hi!
On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 09:44:02 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Version: 4.1.0.0
>
> > While I'm not a very big fan of info files (even when using pinfo),
> > it seems for now it's the only way to get
Control: tag -1 - moreinfo
Hi!
On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 10:44:32 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22 2017, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > At least on the PDF output, the section numbers are wrong, as there
> > are now two chapters that include the old sections.
>
> C
Hi!
On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 11:09:37 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Sean Whitton wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 22 2017, Guillem Jover wrote:
> >> This version has lost the distinction between a single policy html and
> >> the one with different files per chapter. This will br
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.0.0
Hi!
The info file, on its initial page contains a Menu with the following
entries:
,---
* Menu:
* Version::
* Contents::
* Legal Notice::
`---
For which Version contains a one-liner. It would be nicer if Contents
would get expanded into the main Menu.
T
On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 17:26:32 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22 2017, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > I guess there are two problems here, one is indeed completely losing
> > the multi-page rendering from the package. The other is the default
> > change in the web site.
On Sun, 2017-11-05 at 10:20:35 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version 4.1.1.1
> Severity: normal
> User: debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: proposal
>
> On Sat, Nov 04 2017, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > While there has not been any comments / feedback on devel-devel,
Hi!
On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 22:29:30 +0100, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> Package: developers-reference
> Version: 3.4.19
> Severity: normal
> Tags: patch
> in paragraph 5.6.5 you recommend to login to ssh.debian.org to find the
> logfile for queued. This seems to be no longer true. Nevertheless the
>
Hi!
On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 13:26:01 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.1.3.0
> We had another thread on debian-devel recently, in which it once again
> became evident that epochs are misunderstood. Epoch bumps should be
> rare and there are often better solutions. I
On Fri, 2018-06-15 at 19:05:17 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Sean Whitton writes ("Bug#846970: Patch to document Build-Indep-Architecture
> field"):
> > > +``Build-Indep-Architecture``
> > > +
> Zooming out a bit:
>
> We do not normally add fields to Policy until they
On Thu, 2018-06-28 at 13:03:56 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 11:39:53AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Wouter Verhelst writes ("Bug#891216: seconded 891216: Requre d-devel
> > consultation for epoch bump"):
> > > I would oppose this change.
> >
> > > Documenting why y
On Thu, 2018-06-28 at 14:34:06 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 01:43:17PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-06-28 at 13:03:56 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 11:39:53AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > >
On Thu, 2018-06-28 at 10:23:17 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> Sean Whitton writes:
> >> OK. Something like this?
> >>
> >> Packages must not contain files in /home, and packages' maintainer
> >> scripts must not write to users' home directories. The programs in
> >> those packages may c
On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 09:15:25 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > FAOD I feel very strongly about this. The bug is over a year old.
> > Can the Policy Editors please tell me when it would be apprropiate to
> > escalate this to the TC ?
*Sigh*
> Sorry, I wrot
Hi!
On Wed, 2018-07-25 at 18:20:52 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Sean Whitton wrote:
> > On Wed 25 Jul 2018 at 05:14PM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
> >> Some tools, like git-buildpackage, can support merging an upstream's
> >> version history into Debian packaging repositories. This enables more
> >>
Control: reassign -1 debian-policy 3.9.8.0
On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 06:15:42 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> In any case, I discussed this in a private mail interchange with Ian
> a couple of years ago (AFAIR). My reply back then was that I don't
> personally feel very strongly about the
On Tue, 2018-07-31 at 17:23:31 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 02:12:13AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > I'm detaching dpkg from this, I don't see anything constructive to do
> > out if this, TBH.
>
> > If someone wants to see dpkg change
Hi!
On Tue, 2018-07-31 at 17:53:50 +0200, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> I'm going to attempt to first collect what I've picked up both from the
> previously mentioned mailinglist thread (and other similar ones) and
> what I've seen when reviewing maintainerscripts of packages in the
> archive. Hopef
On Thu, 2018-08-02 at 16:45:52 +0800, Markus Koschany wrote:
> Am 02.08.2018 um 16:27 schrieb gregor herrmann:
> > On Thu, 02 Aug 2018 15:13:26 +0800, Markus Koschany wrote:
> >> Nothing will break because no tool besides Lintian checks
> >> debian/copyright for copyright format 1.0 compatibility.
point I'd just disengage and distance
myself from work involving them.
]
On Tue, 2018-07-31 at 19:43:32 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
> > If someone wants to see dpkg changed in some way related to this, I'd
> > request the same thing I did to Ian a co
On Sun, 2018-08-26 at 12:17:23 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Gioele Barabucci writes:
> > For instance, apache (the application) is configured by some stub conf
> > in `/etc/apache` that loads *.conf files from directories such as
> > `/etc/apache2/sites-enabled/`. The real files are usually in
> >
On Fri, 2018-11-16 at 12:22:35 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> How about also adding one that makes it clear that in *Debian*, policy
> follows practice, and not the other way around (which should also
> require seconds just to make sure people agree with this, even if it is
> a decades
Hi!
On Sun, 2019-01-06 at 00:34:30 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.9.8.0
> dpkg-source format `3.0 (quilt)' supports what it calls `additional
> orig tarballs', named
>-.orig-.tar.
>
> The documentation in dpkg-source(1) says
>component can only contain al
oupled to the target distribution.
Yes, off-loading this knowledge from the packages themselves into
external bootstrapping tools is bogus IMO, and something we should
try to fix.
> Maybe the rule should be to retry configuration of each unconfigured
> package until either they all succeed,
Hi!
On Fri, 2019-03-15 at 00:37:33 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Maybe, but this is neither a new miscellaneous file nor a new
> bootstrapping action. This is yet another bootstrapping tool
> forgetting the lessons learned from the other bootstrapping tools.
My impression though is that the gener
Hi!
On Mon, 2019-04-08 at 14:45:29 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> - whether I should use the scripts that were used to convert
> debian-policy Debian-SGML->docbook->rST+Sphinx, or instead write a
> new Debian-SGML->rST+Sphinx converter; and
Hmm, but the devref appears to be already in docbook?
Control: reassign -1 debian-policy
Hi!
On Sat, 2019-07-13 at 10:27:24 +0200, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote:
> Package: dpkg-dev
> Version: 1.19.7
> Severity: important
> With two Vsc-Git statements in debian/control I get:
>
> dpkg-checkbuilddeps: error: syntax error in debian/control at line 14:
> d
Hi!
On Sun, 2019-07-14 at 09:31:16 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Yeah, this just seems generally wrong to me. I assume the idea was that a
> package may have mirrors of its packaging repository in multiple VCS
> systems and list all of them, but I'm dubious there's much point. My
> leaning is to
On Sun, 2019-07-14 at 15:03:28 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> In that case, should we increase the strength of this by changing the
> first sentence? I'm not seeing much purpose served by developer
> discretion here, and this clarifies matters for tool developers.
Sure.
> diff --git a/policy/ch-co
Hi!
Thanks for sending this out Ian, part of this matches exactly what I've
been thinking for a long time, and the reason for my continued public
opposition and deep dissatisfaction with the tech-ctte as a body. I've
mentioned in the past [P] I'd put my thoughts in a more structured form,
but I al
Hi!
On Fri, 2019-05-24 at 13:42:28 +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> > > In summary: The debhelper fundamentally cannot affect whether
> > > Rules-Requires-Root: no is default or not. The debhelper compat level
> > > system is the wrong interface to do this as well.
> > >
> > > That said, in a dista
On Sat, 2019-09-14 at 08:58:21 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Sat 14 Sep 2019 at 02:01PM +00, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 01:34:49PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >> There is already a section about reproducibility in the debian-policy,
> >> but it only mentions the binary pa
Hi!
On Sat, 2019-10-05 at 21:44:25 +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.4.1.1
> Severity: normal
> Policy section 11.8.5, point 1 says
>
> > If one or more of the fonts so packaged are necessary for proper
> > operation of the package with which they are associated th
Hi!
On Tue, 2019-10-08 at 10:09:08 +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 10:05:05 +
> From: Holger Levsen
> To: 288822-d...@bugs.debian.org
> Subject: bug purpose vague and unclear
> Message-ID: <20191008100505.grkghleotjlxn...@layer-acht.org>
> I don't really unde
On Tue, 2019-10-08 at 10:33:46 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 12:30:50PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > I don't really understand "#288822: developers-reference: "Bugs" control
> > > field
> > > not documented" and
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.4.1.1
Severity: wishlist
Hi!
We currently require (with a must) in section §12.5, to add to the
debian/copyright, where the upstream source was obtained from:
,---
In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream sources
(if any) were obtained,
On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 09:00:29 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
> > This means that when using a debian/watch file one has to duplicate
> > the information in two places, with the possibility of this getting
> > out-of-sync, etc.
>
> > In additi
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.4.1
Severity: normal
Hi!
There's this text in section §9.2.1:
,---
Packages other than "base-passwd" must not modify "/etc/passwd",
"/etc/shadow", "/etc/group" or "/etc/gshadow".
`---
It's not clear to me, whether this refers to the packaging or any
pro
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.4.1
Severity: minor
Hi!
The rendering to plain text contain many technical terms, program
names, email addresses, make rule names, etc., that have been cut
at their hypen at the end of line. This makes copy&paste more
difficult, and it reads confusingly.
I start
Source: debian-policy
Source-Version: 4.4.1.1
Severity: normal
Hi!
Found this markup issue while going over the policy:
- chapter 4, footnote [6], rendered as:
,---
listed in the :ref:"`Maintainer" <#s-f-Maintainer` or "`Uploaders"
` control fields of the package), the first line
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.4.1
Severity: minor
Hi!
Noticed the following instances of spurious spaces after a dash, while
skimming over the plain text policy document:
- index, rendered as:
,---
* 7.8. Additional source packages used to build the binary -
"Built- Using"
On Sat, 2019-11-09 at 08:55:23 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu 07 Nov 2019 at 09:00AM -08, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I'm in favor of dropping this information from debian/copyright and
> > instead writing some language saying that packages should include this
> > information in Homepage in debian
On Fri, 2019-11-22 at 10:12:06 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ansgar writes:
> > I think no option says we shouldn't use services that don't rely on
> > systemd as pid-1 (which also includes widely used things like udev).
>
> I agree, but if, say, Sam's option 3 wins, we can directly incorporate
>
Hi!
On Fri, 2019-11-29 at 09:13:47 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
> > As I mentioned on debian-devel, I think major parts of this and of the
> > sysuser stuff fall under dpkg realm. And my plan is to implement this
> > kind of functionality natively i
On Sun, 2019-12-08 at 11:15:57 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Sure, help fir that would be nice. Thanks for the offer. (Probably
> > should have an own bug for that.) Nethertheless, this is the line that
> > causes my problems and needs to be transferred:
> > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/gmrend
On Sun, 2019-12-08 at 15:55:45 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
> > But here you do have another option, but I'm not sure it might be
> > described as nicer TBH, :) something like this, or variations on this
> > theme:
>
> > [Service]
>
On Fri, 2020-01-03 at 20:43:14 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
> > I agree, but let's also fix existing incorrect wording. I reviewed
> > every instance of may and optional in Policy, and I think this larger
> > diff will make wording (mostly) consistent. I've tried not to chan
On Wed, 2020-01-29 at 14:42:08 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Sun 26 Jan 2020 at 03:48AM +01, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > I think one of the nice things about RFC2119 is that it uses uppercase
> > versions for the normative keywords, so that these are very clearly
> > distinguis
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.5.0.0
Severity: normal
Hi!
This was brought up on debian-devel, and I think it needs to be
updated/corrected in the policy manual:
On Fri, 2020-01-17 at 12:21:11 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-01-17 at 11:12:50 +0100, Ansgar wrote:
> >
Hi!
On Sat, 2020-03-14 at 21:49:12 +, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Sean Whitton wrote on Sat, 14 Mar 2020 20:39 +00:00:
> > On Sat 14 Mar 2020 at 08:09PM +00, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > Daniel Shahaf wrote on Sat, 14 Mar 2020 18:14 +00:00:
> > >> - ::
> > >> -
> > >> - /closes:\s*(?:bug)?\#?
Hi!
On Sun, 2020-04-05 at 17:54:01 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Here's a patch for seconding, and for the FTP Team to approve. Thanks
> to Scott for prompting the "all copies" amendation.
> diff --git a/policy/ch-archive.rst b/policy/ch-archive.rst
> index b8ba081..4217dd4 100644
> --- a/policy/
On Tue, 2020-04-07 at 17:18:27 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed 08 Apr 2020 at 01:18AM +02, Guillem Jover wrote:
> >> +The copyright information for files in a package must be copied
> >> +verbatim into ``/usr/share/doc/package/copyright``, when
> >
Control: reassign -1 debian-policy
Control: retitle -1 debian-policy: Binary and Description fields not mandatory
in .changes on source-only uploads
On Mon, 2020-06-22 at 18:51:21 -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> Package: dpkg
> Severity: normal
> X-Debbugs-CC: debian-lint-ma...@lists.debian.org
>
On Tue, 2020-08-04 at 13:56:45 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ansgar writes:
> > 10.9 Permissions and owners currently says
>
> > | Files should be owned by root:root, and made writable only by the
> > | owner and universally readable (and executable, if appropriate),
> > | that is mode 644 or 755.
On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 00:58:27 +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-08-04 at 23:50 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-08-04 at 13:56:45 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > Ansgar writes:
> > > > 10.9 Permissions and owners currently says
> > > >
On Wed, 2020-09-30 at 13:56:47 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:23:43AM +0200, Christian Kastner wrote:
> > To be honest, as a reader, I found that to be the opposite. The "If
> > [epoch] is omitted" makes it sound as if there were an alternative
> > handling if it's not om
On Sun, 2020-10-11 at 00:36:00 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.5.0.3
> Severity: minor
> Triggered by writing https://bugs.debian.org/971975 against lintian
> (which actually was triggered by writing another bug report, #971974
> :-), I noticed that in
>
> https:/
Hi!
On Mon, 2020-10-12 at 11:35:22 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Right. I've clarified this now locally for deb-changelog(5) as follows:
> > +Is a one- or two-digit day of the month (B<01>
On Sun, 2020-10-18 at 11:43:18 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 11:56:19AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > More specifically, it's the right first three steps.
> >
> > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#dependencies
> > currently says
> >
> > Packa
On Wed, 2020-09-30 at 18:34:06 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > > Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > This change does not propose eliminating the concept of Essential, nor
> > > > does it propose that any specific package become non-Essential.
> > >
> >
On Sat, 2020-11-07 at 13:30:13 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Could I ask you to explain your wanting to reduce the Essential set for
> the sake of small installation size in more detail, including some
> numbers, please? It would be good to get to the bottom of Bill's worry
> about this change, but
On Thu, 2020-11-26 at 08:55:21 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> AIUI the first year of contributions and the last year of contributions are
> important data points for each contributor for a project, and mostly only
> the last year as that might be used to calculate when a project becomes
> public dom
On Mon, 2021-01-18 at 18:25:55 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu 03 Dec 2020 at 05:08AM +03, Anatoli Babenia wrote:
> > diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst
> > index edae8c1..1265c5e 100644
> > --- a/policy/ch-source.rst
> > +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst
> > @@ -126,7 +126,7 @@
Hi!
On Fri, 2021-01-22 at 22:15:24 +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.5.0.0
> Severity: minor
>
> This is a bit of a nit pick, but I think it is a special case worth
> mentioning in Policy.
>
> I am basing this on
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sourc
Hi!
On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 11:30:08 +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 09:23:00AM +0100, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> > Source: debian-policy
> > Version: 4.5.1.0
> > Severity: wishlist
> > In Julian Andres Klode's blog I've [1] glimpsed:
> >
> > > New features
> > > [...]
> >
On Tue, 2021-12-21 at 17:53:31 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Sun 12 Dec 2021 at 06:47PM +01, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
>
> > |--- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> > |+++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> > |@@ -652,9 +654,14 @@ orderings. [#]_
> > | ~~~
> > |
> > | In a source or binary co
1 - 100 of 328 matches
Mail list logo
