hi,
unsurprisingly I'm also in favor of making this policy change, now.
I also believe there is quite a consensus (definitly a rough one…) in Debian
for making this change, judging by the feedback we got at 3 DebConfs since 2013,
several mini Debconfs and other events, plus the general feedback i
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 02:42:43PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> I really think there should be an official tool to do build packages
> reproducibly with an interface like cowbuilder.
the official tool to build packages reproducible in sid is called
"dpkg-buildpackage" (since dpkg 1.18.16 in si
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 04:51:47PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > the official tool to build packages reproducible in sid is called
> > "dpkg-buildpackage" (since dpkg 1.18.16 in sid since 2016-12-17).
> So if your package builds with "dpkg-buildpackage" then the build is
> reproducible and any b
On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 06:15:38PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > unsurprisingly I'm also in favor of making this policy change, now.
> Actually, yes, why were we waiting for stretch to be released? :)
good question. I guess because of a mental barrier against doing changes
targeted post-stretch now
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 source
package
will be reproducible. You can only find out with certainity if
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 09:58:12PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-05-14 at 15:20:54 +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > Bill, did you do this for your packages?
on re-reading what I wrote here, it occurred to me that this could be
read *hostile* despite me having *zero* inte
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:05:17AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 03:20:54PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 05:05:36PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > a.) go to http://reproducible.debian.net/$srcpkg and see if its
> > repro
hi,
$ git log master..for-holger --oneline -11
a8e08d5 Bug#835520: [PATCH v2 11/11] Drop entire section 9.4 Console messages
from init.d scripts
dfa8fae Bug#835520: [PATCH v2 10/11] Add reference to systemd integration
examples
658c3c2 Bug#835520: [PATCH v2 09/11] Drop obsolete paragraph about r
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 06:57:03PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hereby I'm formally seconding them and thus I'm attaching those commits signed
> by myself.
this time with an actuall attachment.
--
cheers,
Holger
commit 596521413f7577ee959a4eee1449f146e43cd9c0
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:55:30AM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I second all of Andreas' patches except the 5th and 8th. I've attached
> the diff to which my second applies.
>
> The 5th and 8th patches introduce a normative requirement to use
> debhelper. This is a first for policy, which up to
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:04:17PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 12:11:07 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> […]
> Thanks for putting my thoughts (again!) into better words than I ever
> could!
+1
> > (I am entirely in favor of giving the MIA team more actual power.)
> (Me too.
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 04:35:35PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Note that a prerequisite for such debian/changelog parsing would be
> > > that policy sets strict syntax and semantics requirements.
> >
> > No, we do not need to block such a feature that would work for 90% of
> > packages unti
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 10:39:02AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > I don't understand this suggestion. If it can be automatically
> > generated, just generate it when you need it -- why store it in the
> > source package?
>
> What cannot be automatically generated is the other side of the
> inters
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 09:05:46PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > I think using the uploaders: field to guess who's a team member is just a
> > work-around / an estimate, as we have nothing better.
> It is the official place to list co-maintainers.
you keep repeating this but its still broken by de
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 09:40:22AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> In an ideal world, we would have a documented set of metadata for finding
> upstream releases, of which uscan is just one implementation, and document
> that in Policy. This patch doesn't attempt to do that; it tries to find a
> compr
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 11:23:14AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I am seeking formal seconds for this patch, from any DD.
>
> In particular:
>
> - for now, we only require reproducibility when the set of environment
> variable values set is exactly the same
>
> This is because
>
> - the re
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 01:18:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > +Packages are encouraged to produce bit-for-bit identical binary packages
> > even
> > +if most environment variables and build paths are varied. This is
> > technically
> > +more difficult at the time of writing, but it is intende
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 08:35:47PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
> > I don't like the idea of hard-coding a fixed build path requirement into
> > debian policy.
I don't *like* it neither but I think it's the sensible thing to do now.
> > We're over 80% with variable b
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 03:34:35PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Here is an updated patch addressing these. I reworded it to use
> 'recommended' and changed the tone to better suit policy.
>
> Thank you Ximin, Russ and Johannes!
>
> > "precisification" -> "more precise version"
>
> Our definitio
package: debian-policy
severity: wishlist
x-debbugs-cc: reproduciblle-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:49:22AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I believe the planned next step here is to publish the *.buildinfo files,
> which contain a specification of the environment var
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:09:30PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > I would expect the reproducible builds team to not submit any bugs
> > > regarding varied environment variables as long as as the official
> > > definition of reproducibility in policy states that this is not required
> > > for a pa
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 09:05:29PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Is identical building on any kernel required (and tested)?
no and no.
it's only required that the results is reproducible, that is bit by bit
identical…
> Will every reproducible package in buster build identical on the
> bullseye+
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 09:12:12PM -0700, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > Nix builds packages in isolation from each other. This ensures that
> > they are reproducible
> (As Georg writes, we are using different usages of reproducible.)
…though NixOS is also working on creating bit by bit reproducibly packag
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:20:39PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> @@ -962,6 +962,10 @@ repository where the Debian source package is developed.
>
> More than one different VCS may be specified for the same package.
>
> +
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:52:27AM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> According to codesearch.d.n, get-orig-source is implemented by less than
> 3000 source packages. This is not very low, but neither a high adoption
> rate. It certainly makes using get-orig-source somewhat useless on a
> distribution-s
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 09:08:01AM +0200, Laura Arjona Reina wrote:
> From 044e61f437e74fad6ce7e7d19b52419402c53881 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Laura Arjona Reina
> Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 08:32:38 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] update the links to the other formats of the documentation
>
> ---
> p
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 08:48:25PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > > diff --git a/policy/ch-docs.rst b/policy/ch-docs.rst index
> > > dc02bc6..1de221f 100644 --- a/policy/ch-docs.rst +++
> > > b/policy/ch-docs.rst @@ -208,11 +208,12 @@ important because
> > > ``copyright`` files must be extra
On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 12:16:35PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I am seeking seconds for the following patch:
>
> > diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst
> > index 37c4442..f8f768f 100644
> > --- a/policy/ch-source.rst
> > +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst
> > @@ -686,6 +686,26 @@ even
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 05:02:01PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think there are three options, and I'd love to get feedback on which of
> those three options we should take.
>
> 1. Status quo: there is an undocumented editor virtual package, Policy
>says that nothing has to provide or depend
On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 11:05:09PM +, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > > - ancient-standards-version should be triggered when S-V contains a
> > > release of Policy from the previous stable release cycle
> > This sounds good to me.
reading this once again I'm reminded that this feeds the notion that ou
Hi Gustavo,
frankly, and really just curious, but… what's the point of this
backport? you can always read the latest version at
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ (ok, I see this needs network,
but…)
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:17:29AM +0800, gustavo panizzo wrote:
> When I package something I usually have
> less /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz
> running in another shell
ok, I see your use case now. :)
Maybe it helps to show you my usage: I usually just run
schroot le
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 08:12:15AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Seeking seconds:
>
> > §3.2.2 Uniqueness of version numbers
> >
> > The part of the version number after the epoch must not be reused for
> > a version of the package with different contents once the package has
> > been accepted into
* Policy: Drop get-orig-source rules target
> Wording: Helmut Grohne
> Seconded: Holger Levsen
> @@ -29,6 +30,10 @@ debian-policy (4.1.4.0) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
>* Fix indentation of description of the clean target (Closes: #889960).
> Thanks Ferenc Wágner
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:47:09AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > §3.2.2 Uniqueness of version numbers
> >
> > The part of the version number after the epoch must not be reused for
> > a version of the package with different contents once the package has
> > been accepted into the archive, even if
hi,
dropping -devel@, adding -release@ and -policy@, I'm wondering if this
should be resolved somehow...:
A few days ago I wrote:
> > >if your package recommends a package which is not available, this is a
> > >normal bug, not one with RC severity (and neither an important one).
To which on Tue,
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 01:16:07AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Here is the patch for seconding:
>
> > From 3bad0c91264c707ee163af93e45d3b53e5e4f880 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Sean Whitton
> > Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 08:11:52 +
> > Subject: [PATCH] update description of usage of Standa
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 08:08:55PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Given that it seems we have a strong project consensus on always
> including the field, seeking seconds to make Policy reflect that:
>
> > diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> > index 77ff81f..44080
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 01:05:16PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> diff --git a/policy/ch-docs.rst b/policy/ch-docs.rst
> index 1de221f..e990f34 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-docs.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-docs.rst
> @@ -255,32 +255,45 @@ files may be installed into ``/usr/share/doc/package``.
>
> .. _s-cha
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 08:47:08PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> A set of files under the license GPL-3+ and [GPL-3+] are under exactly the
> same license, so it is confusing and strange to use different identifiers
> based on a technical point about what information is included elsewhere in
> the c
On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 12:31:52PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> As has been mentioned before, you should not need to bump the version
> if you don't use the new format; if you do, you have aleady changed
> the file anyway and might as well change the version digit.
exactly.
I'm kinda surprised
On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 01:43:46PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I think we have stronger guarantees that discussions in the BTS will
> remain available for as long as Debian exists than we do with salsa, and
> so am against moving any discussions to salsa because such records are
> important for ou
Hi Sean,
On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 06:04:02PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> So how about making three changes:
>
> 1) Add something like "In particular, build command lines should not be
>abbreviated." Then we are not leaving that particular case up to
>maintainer judgement, without removin
On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 07:06:45PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Here is the complete patch, for which I am seeking seconds:
>
> diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst
> index 9e7d79c..011893c 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-source.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst
> @@ -40,9 +40,25 @@ ex
On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 12:41:48PM +0200, Gioele Barabucci wrote:
> the policy lacks guidelines on how to treat user-provided configuration
> files during configuration purging in packages for programs that follow the
> "stateless" paradigm (default in `/usr`, override in `/etc`).
btw, I think the
On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 12:11:55PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I don't think this (nice) new paradigm changes anything and do think
> > that all types of configuration files should be treated the same.
>
> > I'd suggest to close this bug as 'wontfix'.
>
> If we do want to recommend removing th
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 06:10:43PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I wish I had some feel for how many people were actually using doc-base as
> a client, though. How many users actually run the tools and use them to
> find documentation, and is it successful for them?
to give a data-point: I have no
On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 07:24:39AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> diff --git a/policy/ch-archive.rst b/policy/ch-archive.rst
> index c429f71..72764a9 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-archive.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-archive.rst
> @@ -183,10 +183,18 @@ In addition, the packages in *non-free*
> Copyright conside
On Sun, Nov 04, 2018 at 10:28:31AM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> I'm wary of one thing: I don't really want to be bothered by this.
same here.
> Going around patching upstream's manpages to add an EXAMPLE section is
> totally busywork, not mention possibly even hard to do for all the
> autogener
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 08:17:42AM +, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> From e3457ee94e7293dbd59c9651d82d0c07fda50b33 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Dmitry Bogatov
> Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 08:02:01 +
> Subject: [PATCH] Update information about example init.d script
>
> According to #913154, there
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 08:38:07PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst
> index dc80243..3c6c9d5 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-source.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst
> @@ -291,6 +291,20 @@ For packages in the main archive, no required targets
> may atte
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 09:10:02PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> More accurately: I am not sure the Debian archive is ready for these
> bugs to be RC, especially since they are usually upstream bugs.
agreed & thanks for catching this.
> I can be convinced otherwise with data, though.
:)
> How
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 09:32:51PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > I can be convinced otherwise with data, though.
> > :)
> If you still run
> https://tests.reproducible-builds.org
we do, however, this setup is for testing for reproducible builds and
not trying 'random stuff' which might cause
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 05:51:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I suggest adding something like this to s1.1, "Scope", as a new 3rd
> paragraph:
>
> This manual cannot and does not prohibit every possible bug or
> undesirable behaviour. The fact that something is not forbidden by
> Debian po
Hi,
in
https://github.com/anbe42/piuparts/commit/283dac3ae7e31fee51efb836468cd8ca5b61584f
(not yet merged into the main piuparts repo) Andreas proposes to file bugs
regarding failing to purge with severity 'serious" because "old bugs are
filed/fixed and any failure due to a regression in sid will
package: release.debian.org
x-debbugs-cc: debian-policy@lists.debian.org,
piuparts-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org, Adrian Bunk
Hi,
filing this as a bug now. Please reassign to src:piuparts once you have
decided...
On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 03:34:23PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> in
>
On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 05:52:17PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 03:34:23PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> >...
> > There's also at least #918312 filed by Adrian Bunk.
> >
> > The reasoning that these bugs will block migrations anyway s
control: reopen -1
control: retitle -1 drop sid-strict?
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 09:18:06AM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > Leaving files around after purge is a separate that will continue to be
> > filed as important.
> Agreed with Ivo. Serious for the cases you mention sound reasona
Package: developers-reference
Version: 3.4.21
Severity: serious
Hi,
so I was going to do a developers-reference upload today, thinking it's
good to update it 'long' before the freeze...
so I did some polishing and tried to build it, and failed, fixed some
broken tags (see git) and noticed it sti
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 08:09:39PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > Interestingly 3.4.21 build fine in unstable on arm64 only two days ago (see
> > https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/history/developers-reference.html
> > )
> >
> > Matching this,
Hi Holger,
yes, a patch to fix this would be awesome! Many thanks in advance! :)
--
tschüß,
Holger
---
holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D3
Moin Holger :)
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:59:53PM +0100, Holger Wansing wrote:
> > yes, a patch to fix this would be awesome! Many thanks in advance! :)
> Patch is attached!
wow, that was quick! Many thanks for that!
> In fact, this member/maintainer/developer naming thing is somewhat tricky,
i
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 04:56:09PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > which IMO is as good as it is. It also explicitly points to
> > http://www.debian.org/devel/tech-ctte for detailed information.
> At least for Policy bugs referred to the TC, they prefer a fresh bug
> where the first message is a sum
control: reopen -1
control: retitle -1 dev-ref: tech-ctte prefers fresh bug reports with a summary
thanks
On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 12:34:46PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> ISTM that it would be useful to have this in dev-ref, yes. I'm not sure
> whether it should be a reopening or a new bug though
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 05:05:07PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Policy §5.6.26 permits "-b" only in the case of Vcs-Git:
[...]
> However, Mercurial (ie. "Vcs-Hg") supports this too in its
> equivalent "hg clone" command. This change was triggered via
> #920314 in Lintian.
>
> A simple patch (also a
On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 12:36:31PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 06:28:04PM +, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > Could you provide an actual diff to be applied to policy.git, please?
>
> Sure, what about:?
>
> diff --git a/policy/upgrading-checklist.rst b/policy/upgrading-checkl
Hi Holger,
On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 01:49:09AM +0100, Holger Wansing wrote:
> > > -Given how easy it is to become a Debian Maintainer, you might want
> > > +Given how easy it is to become a Debian Member, you might want
> > > to only sponsor people who plan to join.
> > to become a Maintainer?
>
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 02:09:19AM +0100, Josh Triplett wrote:
> It's worth documenting things that some packages have gotten wrong
> when the reason why they're wrong isn't obvious and isn't currently
> documented anywhere.
this in mind...
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:06:31PM +0100, Josh Triplett
Hi intri,
a patch for this for developers reference would be very welcome indeed.
--
tschüß,
Holger
---
holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D
D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C
From 69421aaa3286682fe75bcfea5f7a5388ff058899 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Holger Levsen
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 18:10:59 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] add a parapraph linking to
https://jenkins.debian.net/userContent/debian-policy/
Signed-off-by: Holger L
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 05:09:39PM -0600, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> diff --git a/policy/ch-opersys.rst b/policy/ch-opersys.rst
> index 59c92ec..8276bfe 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-opersys.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-opersys.rst
> @@ -1040,3 +1040,33 @@ Debian, so this section has been removed.
> activate th
Hi Sean,
On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 02:45:29PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I am considering to working to convert dev-ref to rST+Sphinx this
> summer.
awesome!
> - who else is interested in working on this;
/me
> - whether there is some reason that this should not be worked on at
> the presen
Hi,
I've added debian-policy@l.d.o to recipients as I believe this either
warrants an exception for debian installer packages or maybe this should
be redfined for all.
On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 11:02:49PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> With the removal of Christian Perrier from Uploaders in almost
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 01:50:24AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> I don't really see what's so specific about d-i here.
I agree, this is not about d-i.
--
tschau,
Holger
---
holger@(debian|repro
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 09:07:53AM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > We need a cross-distro cross-desktop standard for an index of
> > docs before we can move on from doc-base like we did with menu.
> I don't think so: we can just remove doc-base without providing a
> replacement at the same time
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:15:56AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I don't know of any automated solution. We might just have to keep the
> old source and continue building translations from that until each
> language is manually converted? :\
once we have a script which does the conversion, cant w
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 09:04:24PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> While doing sphinx conversion, I realized that it may be better to
> update as follows:
Thanks for the bug report, fixed in git.
Now I wonder, dies it make sense to do an upload now, for buster, and
then another upload with these numbe
package: developers-reference
severity: wishlist
x-debbugs-cc: Osamu Aoki , 930...@bugs.debian.org
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 03:53:07PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Now I wonder, dies it make sense to do an upload now, for buster, and
> then another upload with these numbers changed, for bu
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 02:04:30AM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> My work to convert PO is done.
[...]
> What do you think?
coolio, nice work, though I wont have time to look at this until
DebConf19, me thinks. Still very yay & thank you very much!
(obviously I'd also welcome other people looking at
package: developers-reference
severity: minor
x-debbugs-cc: Osamu Aoki , 930...@bugs.debian.org
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 09:23:42AM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> If you see my initial diff on the first line of common.ent
>
> -
> +
>
> Although for ASCII code range (7-bits), iso-8859-1, utf-8, asc
Hi Osamu,
On Sun, Jul 07, 2019 at 10:52:23PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> You can build HTML and PDF with "make".
\o/
> debian/* still needs to be polished as of this posting.
ok :)
> The conversion process is completely recorded in the history. If main branch
> is update, we can rebase most of
Hi,
adding Sean to cc: for the question mentioned below.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:24:41PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Do you know anyone good in this. Is there any volunteer? (I am
> seeking help on the mailinglist at sphinx-us...@googlegroups.com now)
I'm currently constantly asking on the
hi,
dear debian-www people: src:developers-reference was just switched to
use sphinx, just like src:debian-policy. However, no upload to unstable
has been made yet...
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 08:13:50AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Mon 22 Jul 2019 at 09:22pm +00, Holger Levsen wrote:
&g
hi,
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:22:24PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > > -- I'm afraid I wasn't involved other than reporting problems with the
> > > published version of Policy, and I don't think we made changes to our
> > > package in response to any requests from the www-team.
> > Am I correct to
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 11:36:25PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> With today's commit, pull-down language selection seems to work for
> package installed files. Also now we have Gnome desktop icon ;-)
great!
> It is usable, I think.
I think so too! :)
> > yeah, I also strongly prefer option 2
On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 11:51:32PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> I saw you uploaded a new version. Thanks.
most changes were from you, so thank you very much too!
> As I see this package, remaining tasks are:
this list looks good to me. highest prio for me is getting
https://www.debian.org/doc/dev
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 packages. It might be a good idea to
> add a new requirement that repeatedly building the source package in
> the same environme
On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 11:57:43PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > >> I haven't checked how many packages do not fulfill this condition
> > > please do check. last (and only) time we (=r-b) looked, it wasn't
> > > practical at all. this was around 5 years ago, but I don't remember any
> > > work do
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 05:24:34PM +0700, Judit Foglszinger wrote:
> Added patch for updating retirement/return description to new process.
thank you & happily merged!
--
cheers,
Holger
---
holge
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:46:19AM +0700, Judit Foglszinger wrote:
> Updated both descriptions.
merged, thank you both.
--
cheers,
Holger
---
holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
package: developers-reference
severity: wislist
hi,
subject says it all, please mention packaging-tutorial somewhere.
--
cheers,
Holger
---
holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
control: retitle -1 developers-reference: please mention the packaging-tutorial
and lintian-brush packages
thanks
--
cheers,
Holger
---
holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
PG
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:40:09AM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> I only read the title of the d-d-a mail, but I read the upgrade
> checklist many times over the course of the years.
almost the same here, just that I usually read the mail too.
--
cheers,
Holger
--
block 658825 by 873456
block 658825 by 876075
block 658825 by 879048
thanks
hi,
fwiw, src:developers-reference/Makefile now contains these lines:
# singlehtml files
# don't install Sphinx singlehtml output until various bugs
# are fixed upstream (e.g. #873456, #876075, #8
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 09:07:41PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> fwiw, src:developers-reference/Makefile now contains these lines:
>
> # singlehtml files
> # don't install Sphinx singlehtml output until various bugs
> # are fixed upstream (e.g. #8734
On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 12:12:55PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > the comments are outdated, all these three bugs have been fixed in the
> > meantime...
> Does that mean the singlehtml version can be restored ?
> Does this apply to debian-policy too ?
I've no idea, I just noticed these bugs are
control: tags -1 wontfix
thanks
hi,
in 2005 manoj wrote to this bug "BTW, _why_ are these -dev packages
duplicating files already in a package they depend on?" and I have to
say, I'm wondering the same and don't think this is true anymore, so I'm
tagging this wontfix. Please correct me if I'm wro
Hi Marc,
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 09:41:48AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> The information collected in
> http://wiki.debian.org/AccountHandlingInMaintainerScripts should
> eventually be put into the developer's reference, chapter 6.5.
would you suggest to remove all of that from this wiki page and
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.4.1.1
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
the current package description contains this paragraph:
It also replaces the old Packaging Manual; most of the still-relevant
content is now included as appendices to the Policy Manual.
I'm around a long time and I don
Hi Guillem,
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 I'm not sure it's really an issue still.
> This would be the Bugs field documented now in both deb-control(5) a
1 - 100 of 249 matches
Mail list logo
