On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:33:06AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> I suspect stage1 might also still be useful for (possibly pre-emptively)
> breaking cycles involving build-time vs. runtime dependencies, like the one
> that historically existed between glib2.0 and dbus: it seems more
> straightforw
Hi Sean,
Thanks for picking up multiarch!
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 09:50:21PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I spoke to Russ and we're both of the view that we should document
> multiarch piecemeal. Let's begin by getting a definition of the
> Multi-Arch: field into ch. 5 of policy.
I'm glad you a
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 07:23:14PM +0100, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> I also suspect that given DEB_BUILD_PROFILES=nocheck implies
> DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck, the same should be true for nodoc?
Like DEB_BUILD_PROFILES=nocheck does *not* imply
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck (you must set the latter expl
Hi Simon,
On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 05:26:57PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> That seems like it might be a bug (or design flaw if you prefer). If a
> package (build-)depends on foo:any, it is saying "I am only using the
> arch-indep parts of foo's interface", whatever those are.
You may call it fe
On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 08:44:14AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Rather than introduce the new terminology 'intended interface', which we
> would definitely have to define, how about something like this:
>
> If all a package's architecture-dependent interfaces are listed in
> README.multiar
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
> upstream one. Most package do not need that. Watch files could not do
> that until recently.
>
> So
Package: base-passwd,base-files,debian-policy
Debian policy section 3.8 says:
| Essential is defined as the minimal set of functionality that must be
| available and usable on the system at all times, even when packages
| are in the “Unpacked” state.
When unpacking (but not configuring) a buster
Hi Santiago,
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 06:17:50PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> To be precise: Who is unpacking (but not configuring) a buster or
> unstable essential package set, if not a bootstrapping tool?
multistrap is doing just that.
https://manpages.debian.org/testing/multistrap/multistrap.
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 07:50:27AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > I would certainly consider a lot cleaner to add a new field to base-files in
> > the form "Bootstrap-Depends: base-passwd" than converting all chowns in
> > postinst to use integer numbers.
>
> I agree that we should not expect
Hi Santiago,
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 11:58:12AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> blame for such bug, is annoying me. (So, Helmut, please file a bug
> in the bootstrapping tool which does not work for you, and do not
> try to fix it here).
I refuse the view that multistrap is buggy. You cite undocume
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.5.0.3
Severity: wishlist
Jakub stumbled into the "No hard links in source packages" requirement
added around 1996 and couldn't make sense of it. Neither could Christoph
nor myself. tar does support hard links just fine. lintian does not
check this property. sugar-
Hi cate,
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 04:10:00PM +0200, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> The rationale was probably similar so symlinks: they may fail across
> different filesystems, and we supported to have e.g. / /usr /usr/share
> /usr/local /var (and various /var/*) /home /tmp /boot etc on different file
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 07:33:10AM +, Tim Woodall wrote:
> A. /etc/passwd is part of base-passwd's interface and base-files is
>right in relying on it working at all times. Then base-passwd is rc
>buggy for violating a policy must. Fixing this violation is
>technically impossible.
>
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.5.1.0
Severity: wishlist
I think that the Debian policy is unreasonably strict in its manual page
requirement. While the common case is that manual pages are small and
should be included in the same package, occasionally they are numerous
and moving them to a sepa
On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 11:58:08AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 08:29:21AM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > So this is actually asking for two distinct things:
> > * Allow moving manual pages to dependencies
> > * Allow demoting such dependencies to
On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 10:53:20AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Can you post a patch just doing the moving manpages to dependencies part
> and indicate that you are seeking seconds? Then we can get that
> applied.
I call for seconds on:
--- a/policy/ch-docs.rst
+++ b/policy/ch-docs.rst
@@ -12,9
Hi Russ,
On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 07:20:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> From 12b014c4b930577a728dfb1254b64aac6a5eb1e0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Russ Allbery
> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 19:15:52 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] Allow hard links in source packages
>
> It's not clear why this restrict
Hi Joshannes,
On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 02:35:30PM +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues
wrote:
>To enable creating a foreign architecture Debian chroot during the early
>bootstrap of a new Debian architecture, maintainer scripts and utilities
>called by maintainer scripts of packages
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.16.1.2
Severity: wishlist
Symptom
~~~
I just installed libjs-mathjax. According to its Installed-Size this
would just consume 16512KB. Now according to policy this is just an
estimate of course. But how accurate is it actually? So I installed said
package on ext3. Turn
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Apparently the debian-policy currently says nothing about the characters
used in filenames contained in binary packages. Most packages use common
sense and only use a small subset of US-ASCII. In Debian sid main most
filenames can be represented using the
Thanks for your comments.
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 01:31:32PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> - There are here and there discussions raising possible corner cases
>where distributing files with a name not representable in UTF-8 might
>be justified, for instance in test suites.
Even though
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 08:01:03PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> after more than one month of discussion, we have not reached a conclusion.
Thanks for the ping.
> In the current situation there is no policy, which means that everything is
> allowed. Indeed, there is at least one package with fi
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 08:20:15PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> File names
>
>
> The name of the files installed by binary packages in the system
> PATH
> (namely /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
> /usr/sbin and /usr/games/) must be encoded in
>
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 11:58:03AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> I think configuration files should also be included in the first list,
> because the
> user is supposed to be able to interact dirrectly with them.
I object to this extension of the proposal, because use of UTF-8
characters in conf
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 02:22:47PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Why files in ca-certificates are configuration files in the first place ?
> I doubt users are expected to edit PEM certificate.
Correction of what I said before: ca-certificates does not ship them as
conffiles, but as configuration
On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 12:22:47PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> It is also worth asking what functionality the Installed-Size field is
> supposed
> to have when looking for a solution. It's primary purpose is probably to give
> apt a clue of whether or not there is enough free space to install
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.2
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Appending C.3 says:
"All the directories in the diff must exist, except the debian
subdirectory of the top of the source tree, which will be created by
dpkg-source if necessary when unpacking."
This is exactly one exception na
Hi,
thanks to Manoj for pointing this out and Richard for explaining it.
Unfortunately this rc bug is still open after two months.
Short summary:
sendmail-base.prerm invokes an init script without invoke-rc.d which
technically is forbidden by the Debian policy. (report from Manoj)
The part that
severity 553135 normal
thanks
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 01:50:40PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> That being said, this is clearly not the problem that either Policy or the
> Lintian tag were designed to catch, and you should feel free to decrease
> the severity and add an override. Also, please feel
On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 02:56:59PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> I think one way or another, if anyone is going to set a package-level
> dependency on systemd-tmpfiles, the first (preferred) dependency needs to
> be on either a concrete provider (systemd or systemd-tmpfiles-standalone
> in this ca
Hi Luca,
On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 10:50:14PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> X-Debbugs-Cc: j...@debian.org hel...@subdivi.de
>
> Debian only supports merged-usr since Bookworm. We should update policy
> to reference /usr/bin/sh and similar paths to describe recommended
> she
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.6.2.0
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-Cc:
debian-cr...@lists.debian.org,rb-gene...@lists.reproducible-builds.org
Hi,
more and more packages implement a technique called profile guided
optimization. The general idea is that it performs a build that is
instrumented f
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.6.2.0
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-d...@lists.debian.org, de...@lists.debian.org
Hi,
first of all huge thanks to David, Guillem and Julian for all of their
explanations. In large parts, this bug report is yours and I'm just the
one writing it down.
§7.4 currently starts
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.7.0.0
X-Debbugs-Cc: bl...@debian.org,m...@debian.org,mbi...@debian.org,z...@debian.org
Hi,
given the progress we have made with /usr-move and DEP17, I think it is
time to consider encoding the changes into policy. As of this writing,
there are 216 source packages
Hi Russ,
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 02:06:05PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I spent some time thinking about this, since I personally still wish
> people wouldn't write /usr/bin/sh when they mean /bin/sh. I don't think
> Policy should prohibit this since, among other reasons, we have no
> effective
Hi,
On Sat, Jul 06, 2024 at 06:29:20PM +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> every so often packages install different, unrelated programs into
> different directories on the PATH. This often goes unnoticed for a
> long time, thus changing it later becomes harder.
>
> I think policy already forbids
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 08:27:57PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> given the progress we have made with /usr-move and DEP17, I think it is
> time to consider encoding the changes into policy. As of this writing,
> there are 216 source packages in unstable that still install into
Hi Thorsten and Russ,
thanks for dissecting the disagreement. Your reply helped me better
understand what Thorsten probably sees as a problem.
On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 05:23:35PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Second, you believe the existing migration strategy will not work safely
> for mksh becaus
Hi Thorsten,
On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 09:59:09AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> >that the way people tend to use mksh is by adding a local diversion for
>
> Unfortunately not.
>
> The way we have to do it since squeeze, when dash unilaterally broke
> cross-package coordination, is:
>
> dpkg-rec
Hi Sam,
I see this is getting a bit off-topic and reommend that you spin off a
discussion on d-devel if this really matters to you.
On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 04:27:01PM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Helmut" == Helmut Grohne writes:
>
> Helmut> In b
Hi Russ,
On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 08:40:46AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Just to be sure, though, I don't think this is the problem that Thorsten
> was worried about. My understanding of the problem Thorsten was reporting
> was slightly different:
Thank you for bridging the gap in communication.
Package: dpkg-dev,debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-Cc: po...@debian.org
Hi Guillem and policy editors,
Emilio and me noticed that policy and dpkg have subtly different ideas
of what is a version. While man deb-version says
| The upstream-version may contain only alphanumerics (“A-Za-z0
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 01:41:54PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> What I would like to avoid here is having maintainers feel that they
> should reject attempts to resolve naming collisions with reasoning like
> "this is part of a merge like the /usr-merge and I didn't like the
> /usr-merge", becaus
Hi Sean,
I'm not subscribed, so please Cc me in replies.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 06:37:19PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu 20 Feb 2025 at 11:13am +01, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> > What about existing packages with the same program name?
> >
> > For instance,
> >
> > https://packages.debian.
44 matches
Mail list logo
