Bug#1002626: debian-policy: building packages should not require to be root

On Sat, 2021-12-25 at 18:45:08 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Vincent Lefevre writes: > > On 2021-12-25 14:48:33 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> Vincent Lefevre writes: > >>> Here, the build via "debuild" is failing even when fakeroot is > >>> available (installed on the machine). Note that Rules-R

Bug#1020238: debian-policy: Spacing an typographical cleanups

s to cause less opposition. But I'm happy to convert these to some of the UTF-8 ones if you prefer. Thanks, Guillem From a367e8cd6dd50c4304978c07d3823826bfb61365 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Guillem Jover Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2022 02:49:28 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Remove trailing white

Bug#1020241: debian-policy: copyright-format: Formatting improvements/changes

ective one, but that's one that seems to also be triggering some OCDish button or similar. :) This change was implemented on top of the spacing and typographical patches and seems to depend on changes in there. Thanks, Guillem From 600aabb1a2235396db5fce4240ac0751258fcf7f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001

Bug#1020243: debian-policy: Use OpenPGP instead of PGP

2001 From: Guillem Jover Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2021 07:11:55 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Use OpenPGP instead of PGP The standard is called OpenPGP, PGP instead is a specific implementation. And while depending on the context (such as filename extensions) using .pgp is better and more neutral than using some

Bug#1020248: debian-policy: Clarifying nomenclature for control file names

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.6.1.1 Severity: wishlist Hi! This is a followup from my comment at: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=998165#43 To summarize, we have IMO confusing naming and nomenclature for the various control files and paragraphs/stanzas, and this is even con

Bug#1020241: debian-policy: copyright-format: Formatting improvements/changes

Hi! On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 10:42:28 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Guillem Jover writes: > > > These are the set of changes I keep doing to the debian/copyright files > > I end up touching. While some could be characterized as a subjective > > style issue, I've tried

Bug#1020241: debian-policy: copyright-format: Formatting improvements/changes

Hi! On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 22:56:16 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 10:58:20 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Russ Allbery writes: > > > I would happily apply a version of 0002 that only changes Files and > > > leaves Copyright alone. > > I can

Bug#1020248: debian-policy: Clarifying nomenclature for control file names

On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 14:53:30 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Sun 18 Sep 2022 at 10:28PM +02, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > So, how does «source package paragraph» and «binary package paragraph» > > (of the «template control file») sound instead? > > Can we standardise on

Bug#1020241: debian-policy: copyright-format: Formatting improvements/changes

On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 18:04:00 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Guillem Jover writes: > > BTW, just to make this clear, if this feels like it might not be decided > > quickly on the Debian policy side, then I'll prepare/commit changes to > > revert this behavior from to

Bug#1020241: debian-policy: copyright-format: Formatting improvements/changes

On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 18:01:38 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Guillem Jover writes: > > > Oh! I've completely missed this all this time, I think because that > > feels very weird given that it has no synopsis and the text is added > > already on the first line on the

Bug#1020248: debian-policy: Clarifying nomenclature for control file names

Hi! On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 17:34:57 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Sean Whitton writes: > > On Mon 19 Sep 2022 at 12:45AM +02, Guillem Jover wrote: > >> So, personally, I'd be happy to fully switch to stanza TBH, because it > >> seems more specific to our use, pr

Bug#823256: debian-policy: Update maintscript arguments with dpkg >= 1.18.5

Hi! On Tue, 2022-09-20 at 18:52:22 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Here is a patch that I believe implements that, and which I think is ready > for seconds. > >From 2260f7a3aafe93282860aad07b7d8c1544bcf0ce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Russ Allbery > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 18:49:04 -0700 > Subje

Bug#963524: debian-policy: Binary and Description fields not mandatory in .changes on source-only uploads

Hi! On Tue, 2022-09-20 at 21:21:23 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Here is a patch to fix this wording in Policy. I think it's ready for > seconds. > >From c98654d7effa875c6e11da16159ac3feded8f763 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Russ Allbery > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 21:17:55 -0700 > Subject: [PAT

Bug#1020248: [Git][dbnpolicy/policy][master] 2 commits: Use stanza to refer to deb822 parts instead of paragraph

Hi! On Thu, 2022-09-22 at 14:26:38 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 06:08:16PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : > > I do find the use of paragraph the way we were previously using it to > > be confusing, particularly given that the paragraphs contain fields > > which in turn con

Bug#953911: debian-policy: clarify documentation of "Closes: #NNNNNN" changelog syntax

Hi! On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 21:42:37 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > "Daniel Shahaf" writes: > > Here's a revision of the patch incorporating the feedback so far: > > Thank you for this patch! I confirmed that your description matches the > regular expression. This has now been applied for the next

Bug#998282: Please make Section a required field for the source paragraph in d/control

Hi! On Tue, 2022-09-20 at 19:36:36 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Felix Lechner writes: > > The installable stanzas in d/control (called "binary package paragraphs" > > in policy) inherit the Section field from the source paragraph. There is > > no reason to provide inheritance the other way around

Bug#1020267: Essential packages only provide functionality after being configured

Hi! On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 20:27:46 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Helmut Grohne writes: > > […] It can be made explicit in section 3.8 quite easily: > > > Since dpkg will not prevent upgrading of other packages while an > > ``essential`` package is in an unconfigured state, all ``essential`` > >

Bug#1020248: marked as done (debian-policy: Clarifying nomenclature for control file names)

te: > Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2022 22:28:00 +0200 > From: Guillem Jover > To: sub...@bugs.debian.org > Subject: debian-policy: Clarifying nomenclature for control file names > > Package: debian-policy > Version: 4.6.1.1 > Severity: wishlist > This is a followup from my comment

Bug#1020248: marked as done (debian-policy: Clarifying nomenclature for control file names)

rt, though. :) (In any case, hope this is all not too inconvenient!) > Guillem Jover writes: > > And for some reason I think I also got the impression, even though > > the stanza changes had been committed, they could still be backed out. > > (BTW I've now gone over

Bug#1020248: marked as done (debian-policy: Clarifying nomenclature for control file names)

Hi! On Sat, 2022-12-17 at 17:24:57 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Sat 17 Dec 2022 at 04:43PM +01, Guillem Jover wrote: > > Sorry, probably my fault! As I tend to use «Fixes:» git pseudo-fields > > for things that fix part of a bug, but are not intended yet to close it, >

Bug#1029831: debian-policy: Make required packages build-essential

On Sat, 2023-01-28 at 14:07:06 +0100, Ansgar wrote: > Timo Röhling writes: > > * Andreas Henriksson [2023-01-28 12:50]: > >>Policy is not a religion. Policy has many bugs. Policy is very outdated. > >>[...] > >>Here's an example you could follow: > >>https://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2022/12/

Bug#1035733: debian -policy: packages must not use dpkg-divert to override default systemd configuraton files

On Mon, 2023-05-08 at 08:48:49 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > […] I suspect Policy should say something stronger and more general, > namely that no package in Debian should divert a file from another package > unless this is arranged cooperatively between the packages to solve some > specific (unusua

Bug#587377: debian-policy: Decide on arbitrary file/path names limit

reassign 587377 debian-policy retitle 587377 debian-policy: Decide on arbitrary file/path names limit severity 587377 wishlist thanks [ Resending to the list, forgot the first time, setting Reply-To to the bug report. ] Hi! On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 21:03:28 -0400, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: > Package:

Re: [PATCH] Specify policy for use of revision IDs in version numbers

Hi! On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 17:27:39 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 09:00:14PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > So the reason for imposing a length restriction on version numbers in > > particular is due to the UI display of aptitude? I'm a bit dubious that > > this is a good

Re: [PATCH] Specify policy for use of revision IDs in version numbers

Hi! On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 17:00:17 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 12:46:15PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > Well, this has already been solved long time ago, although the > > restrictions were different then, the dselect methods have supported > > the

Bug#626779: debian-policy: Improve Architecture field in source package (updated to match dpkg-source)

Hi! On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 10:32:17 +0200, Raphaël Hertzog wrote: > diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml > index 9b4a93e..cbc8049 100644 > --- a/policy.sgml > +++ b/policy.sgml > @@ -2975,10 +2975,14 @@ Package: libc6 > > > In the source package control file .dsc, this > -

Bug#627490: debian-policy: Description field specification is ambiguous

Package: debian-policy Version: 3.9.2.0 Severity: normal User: debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Usertag: issue Hi! The current specification for the Description field in §5.6.13 seems to be ambiguous regarding what can or cannot follow the initial characters. It specifies that a line can start

Bug#627490: debian-policy: Description field specification is ambiguous

On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 16:10:59 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Sat, May 21, 2011 at 08:47:22AM +0200, Guillem Jover a écrit : > > > > The current specification for the Description field in §5.6.13 seems > > to be ambiguous regarding what can or cannot follow the i

Bug#627490: debian-policy: Description field specification is ambiguous

On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 10:53:13 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > dpkg errors out on empty lines inside a field value, but not blank > lines (those consisting only of spaces/tabs). Sorry, this was not clear. dpkg errors out when it expects only one stanza, otherwise an empty line (not a blank on

Bug#604397: debian-policy: require build-arch and build-indep targets

Hi! On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 03:59:43 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Did you read the rest of the message? > > But okay, I am willing to accept that this is an approach we do > not want to use. Which still leaves us with a number of options. > > To help some existing packages today (and break oth

Bug#604397: debian-policy: require build-arch and build-indep targets

On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 12:29:20 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Guillem Jover , 2011-06-06, 09:55: > >I'd even go further and combine that with dpkg-buildpackage > >stopping to set compilation flags on the environment, so we only > >have to deal once with possible mass FT

Bug#604397: debian-policy: require build-arch and build-indep targets

On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 13:37:22 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 09:55:25AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > To help no existing packages today but make it easy for packages > > > to opt in (and not break the others): > > > > > > 1.

Bug#604397: Request for TC to rule on a course of action for supporting build-arch

On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 15:59:15 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 12:09:34PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 02:15:37AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > 1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of > > > 'debian/rules bui

Bug#542288: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

On Sun, 2012-01-08 at 10:07:15 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Following the further discussion of sorting issues and Jonathan's point > about ambiguity about using +nmu in the upstream_version of a native > package, I updated this some more (mostly by adding back in the language > that Charles had or

Bug#656637: debian-policy: §5.1 is slightly ambiguous on space

Hi! On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 17:45:32 +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: minor > I would like to request a clarification on whether spaces are allowed > in fields. My first thought was that it is not allowed. However > units-filter/3.5-2 has a a space in the fields of

Bug#661933: debian-policy: mandate UTF-8 encoding for copyright files

On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 19:29:27 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Ben Finney writes: > > Jakub Wilk writes: > > >> I propose that all copyright files must use UTF-8 encoding. Lintian has > >> been emitting a warning for copyright files using obsolete national > >> encodings since 2007 and there are no

Re: Proposal to update NMU section 5.11.1

On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 00:54:41 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 23/04/12 at 17:24 -0400, Chris Knadle wrote: > > Section 5.11.1: > > > > - Seems to imply that the only reason to do an NMU is for fixing bugs. In > > interpreting this, it is not clear that a wishlist bug report of "please > > pa

Bug#190753: Proposing to appeal to the tech. comittee about language extensions in scripts.

On Fri, 2012-04-27 at 18:01:52 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > As proposed in 2010 (http://bugs.debian.org/190753#98), I would like to ask > the > Technical Comittee to reconsider our Policy, and restrict it to cases where > the > name of a program is an interface (http://bugs.debian.org/190753#12

Bug#291148: Proposal

On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 23:10:50 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > So since no one had anything to add, here is a concrete proposal. All > of this reflects current practice, I believe. Since the addition of > status_of_proc to /lib/lsb/init-functions, this has been quite > standardized in practice,

Bug#681289: debian-policy: Changelog and copyright should be package metadata

On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 09:00:59 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > In any case, I believe we should create dpkg --changelog > and dpkg --copyright as the canonical end-user interface. I've mentioned this several times now, I've something similar to that alreadyd implemented locally. I just didn't incl

Bug#681289: debian-policy: Changelog and copyright should be package metadata

On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 23:29:48 +0200, Carsten Hey wrote: > * Raphael Hertzog [2012-07-13 09:00 +0200]: > > Guillem introduced the --control-list and --control-show interfaces … > > > > If … , we should IMO create a new package that will hook into dpkg > > --post-invoke and … > > > > … should create

Bug#654958: debian-policy: Document VCS fields.

Hi! On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 22:51:12 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Thanks again for your help. I've applied all suggested changes. > Interdiff and updated patch attached. Seconded. thanks, guillem signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#273093: dpkg: Unpredictable behavior when two packages want to divert the same file

reassign 273093 debian-policy retitle 273093 policy: Document interactions of multiple clashing package diversions severity 273093 wishlist thanks Hi! On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 22:25:58 +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > Package: dpkg > Version: 1.10.23 > Severity: normal > Feel free to reassign this to

Bug#661816: debian-policy: Do not call update-mime directly, since it is triggered by Dpkg.

On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 08:34:39 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > >From b8c0097790951831202cbd28df8be8bbf223e272 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Charles Plessy > Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 22:58:41 +0900 > Subject: [PATCH] Do not call update-mime directly, since it is triggered by > Dpkg. > > Closes: 66

Bug#681833: developers-reference: please document a package salvaging process

Hi! On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 18:35:33 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > package: developers-reference > severity: normal > version: 3.4.8 > tag: patch > I've prepared an initial draft of a developers reference patch that > would document a package salvaging process. Please see below. Bart has alread

Bug#71621: Policy on update-alternatives still needed

On Sun, 2012-09-23 at 10:03:29 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > In prerm: > > if [ "$1" = "remove" ] || [ "$1" = "deconfigure" ] ; then > update-alternatives --remove tf /usr/bin/tf5 > fi > > is correct I think. The possible invocations of prerm are: > > prerm remove > old-prerm upgrade new-ver

Bug#690293: Policy 5.6.24: Checksums-{SHA1,SHA256} are required by the archive software

On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 11:57:24 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml > index 5760a3f..1ca060c 100644 > --- a/policy.sgml > +++ b/policy.sgml > @@ -2754,7 +2754,7 @@ Package: libc6 > id="f-Standards-Version">Standards-Version > (recommended) > Build-

Bug#679326: debian-policy: DMUA should covered more explicitly

On Sun, 2012-09-23 at 09:59:37 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > This patch creates a new subsection for obsoleted fields. Alternatively > we can concentrate the information where it is, in 5.6.25. Deleting it > would cause some other sub-subsections to be renumbered, so I think that > it is better

Bug#697433: Is the Package-List field necessary for uploads ?

Hi! On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 07:32:54 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 02:42:30PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit : > > I don't think the description for the Package-List field should document > > the valid package types. There's already a Package-Type field for that > > (defau

Bug#697433: Is the Package-List field necessary for uploads ?

On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 21:05:21 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 03:58:31AM +0100, Guillem Jover a écrit : > > It will only list binary packages, not all the information for the > > source package is currently available from other fields in the .dsc > >

Bug#697433: Is the Package-List field necessary for uploads ?

On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 15:29:13 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > here is a new version trying to addres Simon's and Guillem's comments. > @@ -2671,6 +2671,7 @@ Package: libc6 > Description > (mandatory) > Homepage > Built-Using > +id="f-Package-Type">P

Bug#700536: debian-policy: Update dak reference from old katie name

Package: debian-policy Version: 3.9.4.0 Severity: minor Hi! Prompted by 700532 I noticed a reference to the old katie name. Here's a patch updating it to dak. Thanks, Guillem From d8badfe86c67797701bb7d8281e7cb6206344e8e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Guillem Jover Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013

Bug#700574: debian-policy: Remove outdated mention of dselect documentation

Package: debian-policy Version: 3.9.4.0 Severity: minor Tags: patch Hi! Here's a patch removing a mention of dselect access methods documentation that's not present in the manual anymore. Thanks, Guillem From 8c23c71cd1f7f68e06e37af5491cab5dba4ec970 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Gui

Bug#598645: debian-policy: Remove minimal trailing appendix sections

Hi! Here's two patches to start cleaning up the appendix sections. I can file independent bug reports for each change instead if you want. Thanks, Guillem From c7572d7660140a3f61c922cde11be823dfa58a32 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Guillem Jover Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:26:06 +0100 Su

Bug#598645: debian-policy: Switch appendix section for dpkg-buildpackage into a stub

Hi! Here's a patch switching the dpkg-buildpackage appendix section into a stub, as it's only documenting (some oudated) stuff that's already present in the man page. Thanks, Guillem From c8475a14c99b3d88f8f9bd8b18d3fd68892f237c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Guillem Jover Da

Bug#598645: debian-policy: Switch appendix section for dpkg-buildpackage into a stub

Hi! Here's a patch delegating the deb(5) format described in the appendix to the man page, as the section is not very complete anyway. Thanks, Guillem From dca71a36ea82b8679d552bfd6179d6a925029ef0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Guillem Jover Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 19:29:05 +0100 Subject: [

Bug#598645: debian-policy: Delegate deb(5) format description to the man page (was: Switch appendix ...)

Sorry, missed fixing up the subject. On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 19:34:02 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > Here's a patch delegating the deb(5) format described in the appendix > to the man page, as the section is not very complete anyway. Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-

Bug#598645: debian-policy: Delegate deb(5) format description to the man page (was: Switch appendix ...)

On Sun, 2013-02-24 at 12:53:51 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Thanks Guillem for your patches. After the quick exchange with Russ this week > on this list, Yeah, being able work on the appendices piecemeal will make it easier, otherwise it gets difficult to see what's done and what's pending, as

Bug#582109: debian-policy: document triggers where appropriate

Hi! On Sat, 2013-03-02 at 18:45:30 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 04:41:55PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit : > > I am having a look at how to document triggers. In order to simplify the > > explanation and re-use more easily material from the file above, I think > > that w

Bug#701081: debian-policy: mandate an encoding for filenames in binary packages

On Sat, 2013-02-23 at 13:31:32 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 03:48:15PM +0100, Bill Allombert a écrit : > - Is there anybody following the preparation of the FHS 3.0 or the LSB, who >could tell us if a broader guideline on name encoding for files distributed >in co

Bug#701081: debian-policy: mandate an encoding for filenames in binary packages

Hi! On Sun, 2013-02-24 at 11:54:01 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > This could be done by an addition like the following, after section 10.9 > (Permissions and owners). The wording is still a bit clumsy also, I am not > sure if "installed" includes files created by maintainer scripts (which would >

Bug#703022: debian-policy: Appendix G: Diversion example faulty (doesn't work for conffiles)

On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 10:34:58 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Torsten Jerzembeck writes: > > The example provided in Appendix G of the DPM regarding the removal of > > diversions doesn't work if the file diverted is a conffile. This is > > due to the fact that conffiles are not removed during a "rem

Bug#705403: Correcting non-standard dpkg states in the Policy.

On Sun, 2013-04-14 at 20:58:04 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: minor > would you mind if I make the follwing replacements as non-normative changes in > the Policy ? > > - "configuration files only" state -> "Config-Files" state > - not installed state

Bug#706778: debian-policy: Please explicitly forbid "-" at the start of Deb822 field names

On Sat, 2013-05-04 at 20:27:50 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: minor > Policy §5.1 states that: > > """ > [...] The field name is composed of US-ASCII characters excluding > control characters, space, and colon (i.e., characters in the ranges > 33-57 and 59-126, i

Re: obsolete conffiles: s/may/should/

Hi! On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 15:18:04 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > In policy section 10.7.3 Behavior, there is this sentence: > > Obsolete configuration files without local changes may be > removed by the package during upgrade. > > I would like to suggest that "may" be replaced with "

Bug#708566: library -dev naming policy encourages unnecessary transitions (was: Re: Upcoming libgd2-{xpm,noxpm}-dev -> libgd2-dev transition)

Hi! [ Just saw while drafting this, that you filed the bug on policy, so sending a copy there too, let's continue the discussion there then. ] On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 09:51:23 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Andreas Beckmann writes: > > On 2013-05-15 09:58, Ondřej Surý wrote: > >> The '2' in libgd2

Bug#720507: .dsc field for dgit

Hi! On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 18:48:02 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Version: 3.9.4.0 > I have been working on a new tool for integration between the Debian > archive and git. The best available description is probably its > manpage: > http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijac

Bug#720507: .dsc field for dgit [and 1 more messages]

Hi! On Sat, 2013-08-31 at 18:17:29 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > In any case, we need one more Developer to support this patch before applying > to > the Policy. Once we have this extra assessment for consensus, I will apply it > unless there are clear objections. Guillem, please raise your ha

Bug#706778: debian-policy: Please explicitly forbid "-" at the start of Deb822 field names

Hi! On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 11:32:14 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > Guillem Jover writes: > > > I concur completely, and I'm considering rejecting such fields from > > > dpkg 1.17.x, for the reason above. I've got a local commit now rejecting these, targ

Bug#727610: debian-policy: clearer discussion of why build-indep implies building the whole package

Hi! On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 18:12:50 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > in my understanding, it is planned that the autobuilders will call > “build-arch” > instead of “build” once enough packages support this target. According to > Lintian's report, it looks like the goal is near reached. > > >

Bug#727610: debian-policy: clearer discussion of why build-indep implies building the whole package

Hi! On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 15:47:56 +0100, Ximin Luo wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: normal > I was recently told to split part of my Build-Depends field into a > separate Build-Depends-Indep field. Not one to follow orders without > question, I went and did some research, and found th

Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation

On Sat, 2014-01-04 at 22:37:59 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 05:58:19PM +, Ian Jackson a écrit : > > I think that the current policy maintenance approach is too > > bureaucratic and relies too little on the technical judgement of the > > policy editors. I would like to

Bug#628515: recommending verbose build logs

Hi! On Sun, 2014-02-09 at 15:35:02 -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > I raise similar concerns in #680686. There is also discussion there of > making dpkg-buildpackage produce a smart display for interactive builds > (fleeting display of verbose messages with warnings separated out and > highlighted) while

Bug#732445: debian-policy should encourage verification of upstream cryptographic signaturse

Hi! On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 16:51:53 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > I use: > > gpg --export --armor --export-options export-minimal \ > > debian/upstream/signing-key.asc > > to generate this file for my packages. I've been using pgp-clean (signing-party), which seems to generate even s

Re: Bug#748936: apt doesnt understand architecture wildcards

Hi! On Sun, 2014-05-25 at 22:04:48 +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Johannes Schauer [140522 13:30]: > > Debian policy 11.1.1 [1] and the associated footnote [2] allow > > architecture wildcards of the form os-any and any-cpu. Apt seems to > > equal "cpu" with "debian architecture" which is not

Bug#750988: developers-reference: dpkg-buildpackage does not require an explicit -rfakeroot argument

Package: developers-reference Version: 3.4.12 Severity: wishlist Hi! For a long time dpkg-buildpackage does not need an explicit «-rfakeroot» argument if fakeroot is installed, it will try to use it automatically. So it would be nice to update the fakeroot section to that effect. Thanks, Guillem

Bug#750990: developers-reference: debsums package mostly unnecessary with stock dpkg

Package: developers-reference Version: 3.4.12 Severity: wishlist Hi! Since dpkg 1.17.2, there's a new --verify option that can be used to verify the integrity of packages, for now only the md5sums are being checked, but more checks will be added in the future. Also since dpkg 1.16.3 md5sum files

Bug#750991: developers-reference: Possible mention of nmudiff in NMU section

Package: developers-reference Version: 3.4.12 Severity: wishlist Hi! The NMU section could mention the nmudiff tool. Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https:

Bug#750993: developers-reference: Please mention more lint-style tools

Package: developers-reference Version: 3.4.12 Severity: wishlist Hi! There are several very useful lint-style tools that would be nice to mention so that people are aware of them. Here's a non-exhaustive list that would be nice to add: duck adequate piuparts i18nspector Thanks, Guillem

Bug#750994: developers-reference: Please mention shasums being in .dsc too

Package: developers-reference Version: 3.4.12 Severity: wishlist Hi! The Packages section states the the .dsc contains checksums but only lists md5sums, it would be nice to say that shasums are also included. Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org w

Bug#750993: developers-reference: Please mention more lint-style tools

Hi! On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 18:34:51 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 12:26:07PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > There are several very useful lint-style tools that would be nice to > > mention so that people are aware of them. Here's a non-exhaustive list

Bug#759492: File conflicts between /bin and /usr/bin

Hi! On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 09:59:10 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: wishlist > > I could have sworn we already had a bug open about this, but I couldn't > find it. If someone else does find it, please merge. I'm not sure if you were thinking about #562863? Althoug

Bug#759491: Defining pseudo-essential

Hi! On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 09:22:42 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Ansgar Burchardt writes: > > That's related to being (pseudo-)essential and not to priority. Package > > of Priority: required do not have to be pseudo-essential, but packages > > of lower priority can be pseudo-essential: > @@ -132

Bug#761219: debian-policy: document versioned Provides

Hi! On Thu, 2014-09-11 at 21:57:57 +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > dpkg 1.17.11 and apt 1.0.7 recently implemented support for versioned > provides. From the dpkg changelog: > > * Add versioned Provides support: > - Add a new dpkg --assert-versioned-provides command. > - Packages can provide

Bug#759491: Defining pseudo-essential

[ Only found time to finish up the reply I started weeks ago now, so I might lost my train of thought from then. :/ ] Hi! On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 18:02:29 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Guillem Jover writes: > > On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 09:22:42 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >>

Bug#774384: developers-reference: soften advice to justify retirement to debian-private

On Fri, 2015-01-02 at 14:05:57 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Jonathan Wiltshire , 2015-01-01, 21:49: > >-Send an gpg-signed email about why you are leaving the project to > >-debian-private@&lists-host;. > >+Send an gpg-signed email announcing your retirement to > >+debian-private@&lists-host;. It's

Re: developers-reference: Acknowledging NMUs (was: Debian Developer's Reference)

Hi! On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 13:25:39 +0100, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote: > I think in 5.11.4 the sentence > > "If you do not acknowledge the NMU by including the NMU changelog entry > in your changelog," > > can be misinterpreted. > > After some discussions it is consensus that all changelog entries

Re: dpkg: The Installed-Size estimate can be wrong by a factor of 8 or a difference of 100MB

[ Reincluding dpkg-bugs. :) ] Hi! On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 12:22:47 +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 12:06:42 +0100 Helmut Grohne wrote: > > Discussion > > ~~ > > In the example of libjs-mathjax the reason for the huge difference is > > the inclusion of a large number of

Re: dpkg: The Installed-Size estimate can be wrong by a factor of 8 or a difference of 100MB

Hi! On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 20:58:55 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > Hmm does anyone know what is done in the rpm-world, probably > by yum (otherwise I might take a look)? Ok, I checked yum and rpm, and the disk space and inode usage delta is tracked in rpm itself. It just adds a "prob

Re: preinst: get new pkg version to check for downgrade

, Andrey Utkin wrote: > 2015-01-07 17:32 GMT+02:00 Guillem Jover : > > Well as mentioned above you (almost?) never need to know the new > > version, only the old one. What would you need to do only on all > > downgrades, that you would not do also on all upgrades? > > > &g

Re: dpkg: The Installed-Size estimate can be wrong by a factor of 8 or a difference of 100MB

Hi! On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 03:07:50 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > Ok, I checked yum and rpm, and the disk space and inode usage delta > is tracked in rpm itself. It just adds a "problem" to the transaction > in case either of the above are depleted, which are reported on > i

Re: preinst: get new pkg version to check for downgrade

Hi! On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 20:12:00 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 17:55:36 +0200, Andrey Utkin wrote: > > We change database schema from time to time. We do this with scripts, > > in a way similar to dbconfig-common (but it turned out to be buggy so > >

Bug#761219: debian-policy: document versioned Provides

Hi! On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 13:38:16 -0400, David Prévot wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 09:57:57PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > > dpkg 1.17.11 and apt 1.0.7 recently implemented support for versioned > > provides. > […] > > This clearly needs an update. No proposed wording yet, sorry. > > Here is a

Timezone name in Debian changelog format

Hi! The other day, while fixing some dpkg code, I noticed that the Debian changelog trailer regex intended to support a timezone name inside parenthesis, like this: -- Name Sat, 30 May 2015 03:18:43 +0200 (CEST) is bogus (since its inception in dpkg 1.3.0, 1996-08), and it only accepts one ch

Re: Timezone name in Debian changelog format

Hi! On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 10:56:58 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 04:40:58AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > So given that the timezone name has never been accepted, many > > time-parsing functions ignore it, it is redundant, declared obsolete > >

Bug#792853: debian-policy: please disallow colons in upstream_version

Hi! On Sun, 2015-07-19 at 13:48:14 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: wishlist > Policy §5.6.12 reads: “The may contain only alphanumerics > and the characters ‘.’ ‘+’ ‘-’ ‘:’ ‘~’ (full stop, plus, hyphen, colon, > tilde) and should start with a digit. […] if there is

Bug#793493: debian-policy: Update dpkg-architecture flags information

iew by a native speaker advised. :) Thanks, Guillem From 0bc030c417adfa7ca50944c918101dd9ce62bebb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Guillem Jover Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:17:58 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Update information about DEB_TARGET_* variables These are used to support building cross-compilers

Bug#793499: debian-policy: The Installed-Size algorithm is out-of-date

Package: debian-policy Version: 3.9.7.0 Severity: wishlist Hi! As discussed in the debian-policy list, the Installed-Size algorithm as implemented in dpkg-gencontrol changed due to #650077. So the current wording is out-of-sync. Please see the thread starting at

Bug#792853: debian-policy: please disallow colons in upstream_version

Hi! On Sun, 2015-07-19 at 20:25:04 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Guillem Jover writes: > > So, in principle 2) and 3) are mostly problems in dpkg, 1) might be a > > quite good indication that upstreams do not usually do this, and 4) a > > very strong deterrent for them

Bug#679751: Lintian now detect package pointing to /home

Hi! On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 11:34:20 +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > > Lintian now detect script creating user pointing to /home. > After a chat under #debian-qa it appear that canonical path for non > existant home dir is /nonexistant

<    1   2   3   4   >