Hi!
On Sun, 2023-09-10 at 16:31:30 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
> > Hmm, the "For this case" comes just after the "no binary packages" which
> > to me reads as being somewhat referring to it, perhaps the "no binary
> > pack
Hi!
On Thu, 2022-09-22 at 19:20:00 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
> > The fact that this has gone unnoticed in a source package in an existing
> > release makes a pretty strong argument that nothing in Debian cares and
> > we should just remove the constraint.
>
> Here is a pa
Hi!
On Fri, 2015-07-24 at 18:04:41 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.9.7.0
> Severity: wishlist
> As discussed in the debian-policy list, the Installed-Size algorithm
> as implemented in dpkg-gencontrol changed due to #650077. So the
> current
Hi!
On Tue, 2023-09-12 at 22:17:44 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
> > Russ Allbery writes:
> >> Maybe the right way to do this is just have two examples, one as the
> >> default and another if you're using tmpfiles.d functionality added in a
> >> specific version of systemd th
Hi!
On Tue, 2023-11-28 at 14:57:10 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Dimitri John Ledkov writes:
> > Dak currently requires Checksums-Sha1, but I am happy to facilitate in
> > patching dak to make Checksums-Sha1 optional if this bug report is
> > accepted.
>
> The field is documented as mandatory pre
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.6.2.0
Severity: wishlist
Hi!
Starting with dpkg 1.22.0, it implements a dpkg-build-api mechanism
similar in concept to the debhelper-compat levels.
You can check its documentation in the dpkg-build-api(7) and
dpkg-buildapi(1) manual pages.
I think at least the
Hi!
On Fri, 2023-12-15 at 16:40:09 +, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Fri 01 Dec 2023 at 02:11pm +01, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > §7.4 currently starts with:
> >
> > When one binary package declares a conflict with another using a
> > Conflicts field, dpkg will refuse to allow them to be unpacke
Hi!
On Wed, 2024-01-03 at 15:04:01 -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Guillem" == Guillem Jover writes:
> Guillem> At least the dpkg behavior seems entirely
> Guillem> correct to me and required for safe upgrades (
>
> Can you help me unde
atch to add references to that new tool.
Thanks,
Guillem
From afac52fa956087eb737c123682f634fc739c7e20 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Guillem Jover
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 23:37:06 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?Add=20references=20to=20=C2=ABdpkg-buildtree=20?=
=?UTF-8?q?clean=C2=BB=20for=20d
Hi!
On Thu, 2024-04-18 at 23:29:11 +0300, Maytham Alsudany wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.7.0.0
> Severity: normal
> X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-de...@lists.debian.org
> In early 2022, Guillem added support for a new Static-Built-Using field to
> dpkg, encouraging packagers to use it over
Hi!
On Wed, 2024-04-17 at 04:24:16 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Package: developers-reference
> Version: 13.5
> Severity: normal
> Now that the deborphan package has been removed from unstable,
> the section "Make transition packages deborphan compliant" in
> "Best Packaging Practices" is out
Hi!
On Thu, 2024-03-28 at 09:58:29 +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu 07 Mar 2024 at 11:22pm +01, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst
> > index 4307e89..2fb05cd 100644
> > --- a/policy/ch-source.rst
> > +++ b/policy/ch-sour
Hi!
On Wed, 2024-05-08 at 16:39:16 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> 'make update-po' changes files under locales/.
> Our translators Hideki, Fei Ding and Ke Zhang work under policy/locale/.
>
> This seems wrong. As far as I can tell, when the English is updated, we
> are not updating the .po files t
f dpkg fails
I'd assume that might be a side effect from something else, and it
might make sense to make sure this is handled explicitly.
Thanks,
Guillem
From 9b284029b29b3f27cc478198f7de73dfed61cf6d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Guillem Jover
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 19:59:51 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] D
Hi!
On Thu, 2024-08-15 at 11:07:43 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> How about adding
>
> """
> The default for Rules-Requires-Root depends on the dpkg-build-api level (the
> dpkg-build-api is defined in "man 7 dpkg-build-api"). At level 0 (or when
> not declared), Rules-Requires-Root defaults to bin
Hi!
On Sat, 2024-04-27 at 17:40:49 +0800, Maytham Alsudany wrote:
> Thanks for your input and suggestions. I've attached an updated patch with
> several changes, including improving making the description of the field more
> specific, adding another example that is not Go/Rust related, and improvi
Hi!
On Sun, 2024-08-25 at 10:04:33 +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu 15 Aug 2024 at 11:07am +02, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > How about adding
> >
> > """
> > The default for Rules-Requires-Root depends on the dpkg-build-api level (the
> > dpkg-build-api is defined in "man 7 dpkg-build-api"). At lev
Control: reassign -1 debian-policy
Hi!
On Wed, 2024-08-28 at 18:11:23 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Package: dpkg-dev,debian-policy
> Severity: wishlist
> X-Debbugs-Cc: po...@debian.org
> Emilio and me noticed that policy and dpkg have subtly different ideas
> of what is a version. While man deb
On Mon, 2025-02-03 at 09:50:11 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 12:51:02AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > On Sun, 2025-02-02 at 23:40:45 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > Here is a proposal to update the existing paragraph:
> > >
> >
Hi!
On Sun, 2025-02-02 at 23:40:45 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.7.0.2
> Severity: normal
> Tags: patch
> The section 8.4, Development files, mentions that the development
> package should contain a symlink for the associated shared library
> without a version
Hi!
On Sat, 2025-01-25 at 11:21:18 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 08:16:29PM -0500, Jeremy Bícha wrote:
> > - Many new contributors to Debian in an attempt to get their new
> > package "Lintian clean" spend significant time creating a manpage for
> > their app, often a GUI
Hi!
I think at the time of the DebianDoc-SGML to DocBook-XML conversion
and then from that to reStructuredText, there seemed to be agreement
(AFAIR) among the editors that unifying (ideally) into a single
formatting language would be best?
For reference there are currently still three languages i
Hi!
On Sat, 2025-01-25 at 12:29:56 +, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Sat 25 Jan 2025 at 12:11pm +01, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > This multitude of formatting languages has bothered me for a while,
> > every time I take a peek at the sources. :) So this time around I
> > pondered
Hi!
On Thu, 2024-12-12 at 17:50:16 +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: wishlist
> X-Debbugs-Cc: ni...@thykier.net
> This is an editorial request. Neither 4.4 nor 5.6.1 states that the first
> package in `d/changelog` must be aligned with the `Source` field in
> `d/con
On Fri, 2025-02-14 at 01:02:26 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2025, Sean Whitton wrote:
> >Policy has to go through binary-NEW in order to be released. So there
>
> Technicalities.
Not really, no.
> >This bug does not count as RC just because Debian upload bureaucracy
> >hasn't
Control: severity -1 normal
Hi!
On Wed, 2025-02-12 at 04:16:29 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Source: dpkg
> Version: 1.22.13
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Policy §5.6.31
> X-Debbugs-Cc: t...@mirbsd.de
> dpkg 1.22.13 implemented a backwards-incompatible change,
> violating Policy (which
Hi!
On Thu, 2025-02-13 at 12:34:52 +0100, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 10:50:39AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > On Wed, 2025-02-12 at 04:16:29 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > > dpkg 1.22.13 implemented a backwards-incompatible change,
> > &
Hi!
On Thu, 2025-02-20 at 11:18:50 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> OpenPGP v5 or v6 fingerprint?
FTR there is no such thing as an OpenPGP v5 fingerprint, this is if at
all a GnuPG specific construct. (Which I'd expect/hope should never be
allowed in the archive, nor on the keyrings anyway.)
Than
301 - 328 of 328 matches
Mail list logo
