Re: Bug#562945: Bug#582755: Bug#562945: fails to install

reassign 562945 tech-ctte # unmerge 506898 224509 # policy-maintainers, I think you should do this ^ thanks Hi, for those coming late to the party: this bug is about a package which fails to install cleanly: Unpacking runit-run (from .../runit-run_1.1.1_all.deb) ... dpkg: error processing /v

Re: Bug#562945: Bug#582755: Bug#562945: fails to install

Hi, please cc: me, I'm not subscribed. On Freitag, 18. Juni 2010, Russ Allbery wrote: > > I think policy is unclear here: this part of policy was added per > > #224509, while there is #506898 (which is unfortuantly merged with > > 224509, as I read it should conflict with #506898), which says tha

Bug#595652: db packages failing to install...

package: debian-policy x-debbugs-cc: debian-rele...@lists.debian.org Hi, please clarify what the right behaviour should be and how failing to install without a local db should be treated. Thanks. context: bugs such as #595594 h01ger: fwiw i still think that if an app needs to talk to a db se

Bug#595652: db packages failing to install...

Hi, On Sonntag, 19. September 2010, Russ Allbery wrote: > I do think it's okay to require that one answer a debconf prompt saying > "no, I really don't want any configuration" in order to get that opt-out > behavior, though, so I'm not sure that quite addresses Holger's problem. if it would be a

Bug#595652: lists of affected packages

Hi, http://piuparts.debian.org/squeeze/db_setup_error.html displays a list of packages affected by this problem now, currently there are 26 of those. One or two months ago it were ~40. IOW: less than 0.1%. cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message

Bug#587279: Bug#603680: libnautilus-extension1: breaks nautilus-share upgrade from lenny

Hi, if you intend to reply to this subthread, please use the 587279 bug. On Mittwoch, 17. November 2010, Bill Allombert wrote: > I do not think it is correct to ever upgrade a free package to a non-free > one. Now, apt is not at fault, the problem rather lie in a strange > interpretation of polic

Bug#587279: Bug#603680: Bug#587279: Bug#603680: libnautilus-extension1: breaks nautilus-share upgrade from lenny

On Freitag, 19. November 2010, Russ Allbery wrote: > I believed that because that's what Debian has done for as long as I've > been involved in it, so I always assumed that was the intended meaning. You convinced me with this. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#587279: libnautilus-extension1: breaks nautilus-share upgrade from lenny

On Montag, 22. November 2010, Bill Allombert wrote: > Part of the problem is what happens when the free alternative is not > installable. then the package becomes rc-buggy just like when it stops to compile. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#230217: should packages begin using /srv ?

block 340609 by 230217 block 340608 by 230217 block 311524 by 230217 block 315080 by 230217 block 336650 by 230217 thanks Hi, On Wednesday 21 December 2005 19:05, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 13:13 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: > [...] > > > Anyway, shall I fil

Bug#230217: should packages begin using /srv ?

Hi, On Monday 30 January 2006 18:31, Holger Levsen wrote: > BTW, the fai maintainer said he will wait til this has been resolved before > fixing #340609, #340608, #311524, #315080, #336650. (Which are serious (or > should be) as they are against policy.) FWIW those bugs are also presen

Bug#230217: seriously wrong pathes in FAI and #230217

Hi, Manoj is Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, h01ger is me. from #debian-devel on OFTC: Manoj, any comment on #230217 ? h01ger: well, we need to come up with language that spell out which (perhaps optional) parts of FHS 2.3 are to be ignored by debian packages, and then change the reco

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

Hi, On Monday 06 November 2006 18:07, Russ Allbery wrote: > + required under POSIX, hence this explicit addition. Also, > + rumour has it that this shall be mandated under the LSB > + anyway. I dont think the debian policy should spread rumours about the LSB.

Bug#399331: please define howto set urgency

package: debian-policy version: 3.7.2.2 severity: wishlist Hi, http://www.us.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Urgency doesn't give any indication how the urgency should be set. So it's arbitrary to the maintainers will? I don't think so :) regards, Holger pgpVf

Bug#400322: Chapter 7.x: please specify more explicitly which fields can be restricted to archs

package: debian-policy version: 3.7.2.2 severity: wishlist Hi, "7.1 Syntax of relationship fields" says "All fields that specify build-time relationships (Build-Depends, Build-Depends-Indep, Build-Conflicts and Build-Conflicts-Indep) may be restricted to a certain set of architectures." In "7.

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

On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 08:19:08AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > I would like to add more documentation like this around systemd-related > things to Policy because systemd is complicated and has a lot of options, > so people who aren't deeply familiar with it will easily miss best > practices in its

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

On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 11:04:07PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > --- > policy/ap-pkg-alternatives.rst | 3 +++ > policy/ap-pkg-diversions.rst | 3 +++ > policy/ch-binary.rst | 35 ++ > 3 files changed, 41 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/policy/ap-pkg-a

Re: 6.1.3. Multiple binary packages question

On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 09:29:04AM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Kristian" == Kristian Penno writes: > Kristian> source package is referenced. The lyx source package uses > Kristian> some shell commands to move files around in the rules > Kristian> file. Is this preferred to usi

Re: 6.1.3. Multiple binary packages question

On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 11:19:06PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 09:21:00PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 09:29:04AM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > >>>>> "Kristian" == Kristian Penno writes: > > &

Bug#1040914: dev-ref: update best practices around security (Re: Securing Debian Manual too old?)

package: developers-reference x-debbugs-cc: debian-secur...@lists.debian.org hi, On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 10:46:20PM +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > > I found the Securing Debian Manual > > (https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-manual/index.en.html). > > This version is from 2017.

Bug#1040704: #1040704: check_running_kernel fails to find version on bookworm/armhf as well

control: retitle -1 check_running_kernel fails to find version on bookworm/(arm64|armhf) thanks hi, I can confirm this bug affects armhf as well: holger@jtx1a:~$ /usr/lib/nagios/plugins/check_running_kernel WARNING: Running kernel does not match on-disk kernel image: [Linux version 6.1.0-10-ar

Bug#1042779: developers-reference: overhaul of chapter about i18n / l10n

Hi Holger, On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 10:49:20PM +0200, Holger Wansing wrote: > yesterday I was a bit shocked when reading chapter 8 of the developers-ref: > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/l10n.en.html > > That chapter has several wrong/bad sentences (or is heavily outdated,

Bug#1057057: debian-policy: Please make Checksums-Sha1 optional

hi, snapshot.d.o also uses sha1 sums, at least internally, but I'd not surprised if also for external verification. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ Reporter: You'

Bug#1058589: developers-reference: please mention urgency=critical/emergency for completeness

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 07:04:01PM +0100, Daniel Gröber wrote: > That's fine, but in that case this fact should be documented instead no? > Right now there's confusion across the docs what criticality levels are > available. Britney.conf and d-policy mention critical/emergency but nothing > else ev

Bug#1058589: developers-reference: please mention urgency=critical/emergency for completeness

control: reopen -1 control: reassign -1 debian-policy control: retitle -1 please stop mentioning urgency=critical thanks On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:27:20PM +0100, Daniel Gröber wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 07:24:49PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote: > > I believe Debian policy should b

Bug#1062983: Developers Reference in A4 instead of US Letter

hi & thanks for filing this bug report! On Sun, Feb 04, 2024 at 10:57:03AM +0100, Sebastian Geiger (Lanoxx) wrote: > May I request, that: > > a) We switch to A4 as the default format for the developers-reference > since that is the format used by most of the world. > b) We consider offering both

Bug#1062983: Developers Reference in A4 instead of US Letter

On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 11:00:42AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > I think for English at least I'd prefer to offer both A4 and letter, for eg > > the German translation I think it's enough to only provide A4. > Looks like that info can be gotten from the locales on glibc systems: [...] nice, thanks.

Bug#1068192: debian-policy: extended forbidden network access to contrib and non-free

On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:58:37PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Thanks Philipp. Following that result, please find a patch proposal: > > --- a/policy/ch-source.rst > +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst > @@ -338,9 +338,9 @@ > For example, the build target should pass ``--disable-silent-rules`` > to an

Bug#1068192: debian-policy: extended forbidden network access to contrib and non-freeo

On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 09:49:58PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > If we go that route, here is a proposed alternative patch: > > --- a/policy/ch-source.rst > +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst > @@ -338,7 +338,8 @@ > For example, the build target should pass ``--disable-silent-rules`` > to any configure

Re: Bug#872944: #872944 www.debian.org: Remove JavaScript from Policy Manual published on web mirrors

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 09:18:06AM +0200, Thomas Lange wrote: > A single page html may be an additional option but there's already the > single page txt version and the PDF. That's sufficient and I see no > need in providing more formats of this manual. > > Therefore we can close this and I will c

Re: single-page html of debian-policy to be revived?

On Sun, Apr 14, 2024 at 08:43:51PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote: > ... but if dev-ref is already shipping both, maybe singlepage is indeed > usable these days ... I think it is. > > Could the Policy Editors team check, if everything is fine now, and if > > this should be published again? > > At lea

Bug#1069139: developers-reference: out-of-date section "Make transition packages deborphan compliant"

Hi Vincent, On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 04:24:16AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Now that the deborphan package has been removed from unstable, > the section "Make transition packages deborphan compliant" in > "Best Packaging Practices" is out of date and should be updated. > > See https://bugs.deb

Bug#1069139: developers-reference: out-of-date section "Make transition packages deborphan compliant"

On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 08:30:52PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > While I fully support properly marking obsolete packages by putting > them in the (unfortunately misnamed :) oldlibs section (well excluding > library-like depended on packages that get dropped as a mater of course). > I wanted to not

Bug#1069934: 4.9.2. The dak ls utility should mention rmadison

control: severity -1 wishlist thanks Hi Bill, On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 12:11:21PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > 4.9.2. The dak ls utility > could mention rmadison from devscripts > that does not require to log to ftp-master.debian.org. yes. patches, commits & pushes welcome. -- cheers,

Bug#1074014: encode mandatory merged-/usr into policy

On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 08:27:56PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > For these reasons, I propose changing section 10.1 and encoding the > avoidance of symlink vs directory conflicts into policy. To get a > discussion going, I suggest the following update. > > - To support merged-/usr systems, package

Bug#1075914: developers-reference: issue with sidebar in singlehtml variant on small screens

Hi Holger, On Sun, Jul 07, 2024 at 09:25:38PM +0200, Holger Wansing wrote: > This has already been filed as an issue in sphinx' github project in 2020: > > I will mark this bug as forwarded to that github issue later. thank you for fili

Bug#1075856: Clarify filename conflicts for programs

On Sat, Jul 06, 2024 at 06:29:20PM +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > diff --git a/policy/ch-files.rst b/policy/ch-files.rst > index b34c183..40bfa42 100644 > --- a/policy/ch-files.rst > +++ b/policy/ch-files.rst > @@ -7,7 +7,9 @@ Binaries > > > Two different packages must not install p

Bug#499167: developers-reference: please explain deb/debian/ds suffixes in versions

Hi Daniel, On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 10:10:19AM +0200, Daniel Gröber wrote: > The convention seems to be documented in > https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq#What_does_.2BIBw-dfsg.2BIB0_or_.2BIBw-ds.2BIB0_in_the_version_string_mean.3F [...] > The text in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrepor

Bug#1078505: developers-reference: document corner case of debian version and rational

On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 07:44:08AM +, Bastien Roucariès wrote: > I believe that policy is like law and devref is some kind of circulaire in > civil law country > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulaire) an interpretation of a legal text > that do not > introduce new rules but clarify law.

on the formal significance of vetoing something

hi & just for context, though my question is NOT about this case: On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 05:11:21PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > [...] I note that if > our proposed change #somebug to the Debian policy that has received six > seconds and one veto comes into effect I wonder if such a veto has a

Re: on the formal significance of vetoing something

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 10:19:08AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > I wonder if such a veto has any formal effect? > It doesn't. [..] > > IOW, anyone can veto anything, but a veto as such has no power on its > > own, right? > > Correct. The Policy Editors are responsible for judging consensus. We

Bug#1088443: debian-policy: Recommend Debian package version format when upstream has no releases

control: reassign -1 src:developers-reference thanks On Sun, Dec 01, 2024 at 09:44:17PM -0800, Otto Kekäläinen wrote: > > It does not mean that there is no policy (lowercase 'p') for these > > version strings in Debian. which is defacto true. also I agree with everything else Sean wrote in this

Bug#1088443: debian-policy: Recommend Debian package version format when upstream has no releases

On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 03:15:47PM -0500, Jeremy Bícha wrote: > I prefer to keep the version number as simple as possible. same here. > Therefore, I used the format 0~20200916-1 for fonts-noto-color-emoji > (before it later adopted regular versioned releases). That format is > not detected by yo

Bug#1088443: debian-policy: Recommend Debian package version format when upstream has no releases

On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 03:50:24PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > ... or alternatively, following the feedback on this bug report, ask > devscript to > change "pretty" not to include the %h part ? bugs, patches & commits very welcome there too! (with my very recent devscripts maintainer hat :)

Bug#1087626: #1087626: confirmation that building without fakeroot causes no meaningful diff

On Sun, Dec 08, 2024 at 01:32:41PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote: > Thanks for confirming -- patch is already applied and pending :) \o/ -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄

Bug#1087626: #1087626: confirmation that building without fakeroot causes no meaningful diff

│ + * Support assembling debian-policy's binary packages without (fake)root. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ -- Holger Levsen Sat, 07 Dec 2024 21:35:53 +0100 │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ debian-policy (4.7.0.1) unstable; urgency=medium │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │* Fix typo in 9.3.1. │ │ │ │ │ T

Bug#1091985: developers-reference: Suggest architecture-properties for 5.10.4

On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 01:47:38PM +0100, Diederik de Haas wrote: > I found the use of 'relevant' (architectures) confusing as both > supported/ported and unsupported/'unported' architectures are relevant. > So maybe using 'unsupported' (or 'unported') would be better? yes. -- cheers, H

Bug#1091985: developers-reference: Suggest architecture-properties for 5.10.4

Hi Niels, thanks for the bug report. On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 05:44:28AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: > I think we should add a mention of `architecture-properties` next to > `Architecture`. Maybe something like: > > """ > Additionally, if you believe the list of supported architectures is pretty

Bug#1098948: Changing 10.1 requirements for /usr/games

On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 08:33:46PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote: > ("may" and "encouraged" here have their official Policy meanings) > > --8<---cut here---start->8--- > diff --git a/policy/ch-files.rst b/policy/ch-files.rst > index 6fda3b1..c2e4700 100644 > --- a/p

Bug#1100632: debian-policy: document subuids

On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 10:32:04AM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Sun 16 Mar 2025 at 02:04pm +01, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > > Given this concept exists since at least jessie, I think it should > > finally be documented in policy, too. > > > > I'm not sure about a text. Maybe: > > > > diff --git

Bug#749826: Documenting `Multi-Arch: foreign`

On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 12:35:45PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote: > You'll fine the result of two days of discussion and iteration among > Jochen, josch, Holger and myself attached. > > Kind regards > > Jochen, josch and Helmut > diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.r

<    1   2   3