Hi,
Adam Borowski wrote:
> What about this wording?:
>
> - Packages must not depend on packages with lower priority values (excluding
> - build-time dependencies). In order to ensure this, the priorities of one
> - or more packages may need to be adjusted.
> + Packages' priorities should depe
Hi,
Johannes Schauer wrote:
> please document the new Build-Depends syntax and fields for build
> profiles. The current write-up of the new syntax and fields for build
> profiles lives at https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec
>
> Please note, that the new Build-Depends syntax element is called
Hi,
Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> as a more radical change one could also ask the question where to
> maintain the maintainer information. Currently we handle this in the
> source package via the Maintainer and Uploaders field, and via team
> memberships.
>
> This has several limitations: for teams,
Hi,
Russ Allbery wrote:
> How does this look to everyone?
Seconded, with or without the tweaks dkg suggested in
https://bugs.debian.org/732445#68
Thanks,
Jonathan
> --- a/policy.xml
> +++ b/policy.xml
> @@ -2556,11 +2556,28 @@ endif
>
>
> This is an optional, recommended con
Hi Bastien,
Bastien ROUCARIÈS wrote:
> I think the following patch is needed even if profiles are not fully
> specified.
> Maybe an example about nodoc and help2man will also help. The nocheck should
> check both BUILD_OPTIONS and BUILD_PROFILES. It will help when implementing as
> policy profil
Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:07:01AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> Otherwise, how about something along these lines: [...]
>
> Commenting on Charles' patch, I think that it would be clearer to have
> the 'should' and 'must' requirements in separate sentences.
>
> Thus I am se
Hi,
Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22 2017, Guillem Jover wrote:
>> This version has lost the distinction between a single policy html and
>> the one with different files per chapter. This will break links.
>
> This was intentional. The single page output is much more useful to
> casual reade
Hi,
Bastien ROUCARIÈS wrote:
> set -e is not suffisant to detect error in pipe context
>
> cat nonexistant | sed s/some//g will hapilly return 0 and do not fail
>
> exec 3>&1; s=$(exec 4>&1 >&3; { cat nonexistant ; echo $? >&4; } | sed
> s/some//g ) && exit $s
>
> this could be simplified by usi
Hi,
Russ Allbery wrote:
> +++ b/policy/ch-customized-programs.rst
> @@ -93,19 +93,21 @@ page.
[...]
> -It is not required for a package to depend on ``editor`` and ``pager``,
> -nor is it required for a package to provide such virtual
> -packages. [#]_
> +Packages may assume that ``/usr/bin/edito
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Sean Whitton writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 23 2017, 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 b
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 23 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>>> --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
>>>> +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
>>>> @@ -962,6 +962,10 @@ repository where the Debian source package is
>>
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>> Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> (That said, my understanding is that you don't get any meaningful
>>> integrity protection for Git from using https over http.)
>>
>> As discussed elsewhere in this thread
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>> C. You have transport-level integrity protection, e.g. by using a
>> protocol like https:// or ssh:// with proper PKI.
>
> I think it's worth being honest with ourselves here that the proper PKI
> part is not real
Hi,
Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> Policy § 5.6.11, after describing the meaning of the digits in the
> policy version, reads:
>
> | Thus only the first three components of the policy version are
> | significant in the Standards-Version control field, and so either
> | these three components or all four
Hi,
Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> APT's solver is greedy and sometimes has a hard time to recover from paths
> that
> don't work out in the end. We see this with opencv failing to build on
> !linux-any
> because:
>
> (1) dconf-service depends default-dbus-session-bus | dbus-session-bus
> (2) def
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.0.0
Policy 11.4 sayeth:
11.4. Editors and pagers
Some programs have the ability to launch an editor or pager
program to edit or display a text document. Since there are
lots of different editors and pagers available in the Debia
Hi,
Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 06 2017, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Thus, every program that launches an editor or pager must use
>> the EDITOR or PAGER environment variable to determine the editor
>> or pager the user wishes to use. If these
Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 09:10:12PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:34:15AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>>> Sean Whitton dijo [Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:49:59AM -0700]:
I am seeking seconds for the following patch to close this bug, which I
t
Hi,
gregor herrmann wrote:
> From the Perl world, looking at roughly ~3400 packages I have locally
> cloned:
>
> 28 have a NEWS file (most of them with a Gnome/GTK background), 1
> News, 1 news.
>
> 3368 have a Changes, CHANGES, Changelog, ChangeLog, (and some other
> variations like Change{s,Log
Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 00:04:20 +0100 Bill Allombert wrote:
>> The fact that some upstream do not bother to ship useful changelog does
>> not mean that all changelog are useless, and by removing them we
>> discourage upstream of producing useful changelog.
>
> I sincerely hope
Hi,
Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30 2017, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> Other than that, seconded. I'm not sure whether this is necessarily
>> how the autobuilders *should* work, but there's value in documenting
>> how the autobuilders *do* work.
>
> Thank you for reviewing this bug.
>
> Since Se
Hi,
Markus Koschany wrote:
> as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to request that more DFSG
> licenses are added to /usr/share/common-licenses and that package
> maintainers are allowed to reference them.
>
> License: AGPL-3.0
> Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.de.html
> Exa
Markus Koschany wrote:
> as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to request that more DFSG
> licenses are added to /usr/share/common-licenses and that package
> maintainers are allowed to reference them.
>
> License: CC-BY-4.0
> Source: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
> Example
Hi,
Markus Koschany wrote:
> as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to request that more DFSG
> licenses are added to /usr/share/common-licenses and that package
> maintainers are allowed to reference them.
>
> License: CC-BY-3.0
> Source: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
> Exa
Markus Koschany wrote:
> as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to request that more DFSG
> licenses are added to /usr/share/common-licenses and that package
> maintainers are allowed to reference them.
>
> License: EPL-1.0
> Source: https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html
> Example pack
Markus Koschany wrote:
> License: zlib
> Source: https://opensource.org/licenses/Zlib
> Example packages:
> https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#The_zlib.2Flibpng_License_.28Zlib.29
Hm. The license says
3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.
And part of 'T
Markus Koschany wrote:
> as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to request that more DFSG
> licenses are added to /usr/share/common-licenses and that package
> maintainers are allowed to reference them.
>
> License: OFL-1.1
> Source: https://opensource.org/licenses/OFL-1.1
> Example package
Hi,
Markus Koschany wrote:
> Am 13.12.2017 um 19:10 schrieb Jonathan Nieder:
>> Markus Koschany wrote:
>>> License: AGPL-3.0
>>> Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.de.html
>>> Example packages:
>>> https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#G
Hi,
Markus Koschany wrote:
> I would like to argue that disk space is no longer an issue in 2017 and
> people with special needs (embedded systems) will most likely remove
> /usr/share/common-licenses anyway.
I agree: space on installation media and network transfer time are more
important than
Hi again,
Markus Koschany wrote:
> Let me try to explain it this way: Take src:ufoai-data or src:netbeans
> for example. Both packages ship approximately a dozen different
> licenses. I can't simply copy&paste the upstream license because I have
> to format it to make it copyright format 1.0 comp
Hi Markus,
Markus Koschany wrote:
> Am 16.12.2017 um 15:55 schrieb Sean Whitton:
>> On Wed, Dec 13 2017, Markus Koschany wrote:
>>> If the Policy editors cannot make a decision with regards to
>>> debian/copyright then we should ask the DPL to seek legal advice and
>>> when necessary start a GR f
Hi,
Sean Whitton wrote:
> --- a/policy/ch-relationships.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-relationships.rst @@ -598,17 +598,26 @@ earlier for
> binary packages) in order to invoke the targets in
> Additional source packages used to build the binary - ``Built-Using``
> --
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Allow libc to install files in /lib64
>
> diff --git a/policy/ch-opersys.rst b/policy/ch-opersys.rst
> index 7d9e20a..d7c4956 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-opersys.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-opersys.rst
> @@ -35,7 +35,8 @@ Debian Policy. The following exceptions to the FHS apply:
>
Markus Koschany wrote:
> Am 28.12.2017 um 11:21 schrieb Bill Allombert:
>> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 01:56:44PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>>>> Seconded.
>>>
>>> license-count says this makes sense:
>>>
>&g
Hi,
Markus Koschany wrote:
> I still have to quote license texts verbatim. The only
> "advantage" of the old format is that I can format d/copyright more
> freely but the same information must be present anyway. It is simply not
> feasible to educate all upstreams in existence to wri
Markus Koschany wrote:
> freeorion: [1]
>
> Rather sophisticated game GPL-2 licensed but with various contributions
> / incorporations under different licenses. So I can't just write Files:
> * -> GPL-2. I have to list all licenses with separate paragraphs and
> there is no way to change that with
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Markus Koschany wrote:
>> freeorion: [1]
>>
>> Rather sophisticated game GPL-2 licensed but with various contributions
>> / incorporations under different licenses. So I can't just write Files:
>> * -> GPL-2. I have to l
(4.1.4.0) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
* Fix indentation of description of the clean target (Closes: #889960).
Thanks Ferenc Wágner for the report.
+ [ Jonathan Nieder ]
+ * Use default-mta instead of exim in dependency example (Closes: #892142).
+Thanks to Paul Wise for the rep
Hi,
Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11 2018, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I'm pretty reluctant to specify this sort of optional target that
>> works differently in every package that uses it back in Policy because
>> it's really not standardized, nor do I think it's possible to
>> standardize. If we
Hi,
Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> I'm a bit confused: wasn't it already specified pretty precisely?
>
> Please take a look through the bug's discussion. It's explained why the
> wording was not thought to be good enoug
Hi,
Chris Lamb wrote:
> Sean Whitton wrote:
>> Either Policy should mandate this field, or it should not be a Lintian
>> error when it is not present.
>
> Any update on this? It is somewhat tempting to re-assign this to Policy
> alone until there is a resolution there. What say you? :)
https://w
Sean Whitton wrote:
Seeking seconds:
>
> diff --git a/policy/ch-relationships.rst b/policy/ch-relationships.rst
> index 1eaa422..03f5918 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-relationships.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-relationships.rst
> @@ -228,6 +228,10 @@ The meaning of the five dependency fields is as
> follows:
Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Sun 22 Jul 2018 at 11:12PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
> > That would mean Recommends is effectively Depends. Is it really what you
> > intend?
>
> I don't follow.
>
> My patch says that /some/ functionality might not work without
Hi,
Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed 25 Jul 2018 at 05:14PM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
>> Some tools, like git-buildpackage, can support merging an upstream's
>> version history into Debian packaging repositories. This enables more
>> rich usage of (D)VCS when packaging - for example `git blame' works
>
Hi,
Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Mon 23 Jul 2018 at 01:40PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
>> Let me see if I got this right, and apply it to the typical pkg-perl
>> package:
>>
>> CPAN distributions usually contain no NEWS file, and do contain a
>> Changes/ChangeLog/... file which is "an upstream rel
Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed 25 Jul 2018 at 07:01PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> I share gregor's discomfort: I don't think we've thought this through.
>
> I too want Policy to be as correct as possible, but this bug has been
> open for ten years and one th
Hi,
Sean Whitton wrote:
> Thank you for the discussion, Ian and Simon. Here is the beginnings of
> a patch:
>
>> diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst
>> index 9e7d79c..f27226e 100644
>> --- a/policy/ch-source.rst
>> +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst
>> @@ -40,9 +40,15 @@ example, if
Hi,
Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed 25 Jul 2018 at 09:14PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Looks okay to me. As an alternative, we could encourage packages to
>> add an explicit Build-Depends on netbase if they need this
>> functionality.
>>
>> I think in the lo
Hi,
Markus Koschany wrote:
> FYI: Here is what one of the ftp-masters, Jörg Jaspert, wrote in
> response to my proposal to reduce boilerplate in debian/copyright.
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=883950#80
>
> I believe it shows the generally tendency that they are in favor o
Hi,
Clément Hermann wrote:
> 4.9 states:
> The package build should be as verbose as reasonably possible.
> This means that ``debian/rules`` should pass to the commands it
> invokes options that cause them to produce maximally verbose
> output.
>
> "as verbose as reasonably possib
Hi,
Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed 01 Aug 2018 at 10:47PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Thanks for reporting. My understanding from
>> https://bugs.debian.org/628515 is that the intention is
>>
>> - print out compiler driver command lines, so that compiler errors are
Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu 02 Aug 2018 at 12:16PM +0800, Clément Hermann wrote:
>> "as verbose as reasonably possible" seems incompatible with "maximally
>> verbose
>> output", at least in some cases (golang packages come to mind).
>>
>> Would it be possible to clarify this ?
>
> Yes. Let's im
Hi,
Markus Koschany wrote:
> I personally dislike the trend in Debian to create more and more
> complexity in our source packages. I find the Standards-Version field
> unnecessary, VCS fields should not be part of a debian/control file, all
> DFSG licenses approved by our ftp-team should be liste
Hi,
Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2018 at 19:23:09 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Simon McVittie wrote:
>>> ( ) the full text of the license, *and* the license grant
>>> (unless the license *is* the license grant, like BSD-style licenses)
>>
Hi,
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Apropos of discussion in #813471:
>
> Paul writes:
>> In addition, d-i relies on access to the apt repo for the system.
>> I can imagine other uses of that, so I added a carve-out for that.
>
> In general I think this should be done by saying that packages may
> access th
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder writes ("Re: permit access to apt repositories during
> builds"):
>> My feeling is that this should be an outside-policy carveout, since it
>> makes many applications (e.g., analyzing the build graph, especially
>> when n
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Why don't we make a specific exception for d-i in the short term, in the
> hopes that in the long term we'll have a way to handle dependencies on
> sources
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense to me.
I retract my second in message #13, but I'd be happy to review a patch
that
Hi Elana,
Elana Hashman wrote:
> NEWS.Debian files are listed in the "unofficial policy"[1] but not in
> the official policy.
>
> It seems this was proposed in 2002[2], but in 2003, folks were
> hesitant to "[get] this into policy until enough stuff uses it that we
> can tell it works well".
>
>
Hi,
Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu 02 Aug 2018 at 07:29PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Thanks. Unfortunately, that wouldn't address Clément's concern about
>> maximal verbosity (1) not being consistent with reasonableness and (2)
>> not being concrete enough
Hi,
Clément Hermann wrote:
> On 03/08/2018 04:23, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > On Thu 02 Aug 2018 at 12:16PM +0800, Clément Hermann wrote:
>>> "as verbose as reasonably possible" seems incompatible with "maximally
>>> verbose
>>> output", at least in some cases (golang packages come to mind).
>>>
>>>
Hi,
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#883950: Next steps on "[GPL-3+]" proposal"):
>> Currently, copyright-format
>> 1.0 requires either that every License stanza in a Files paragraph contain
>> some "license text" in the copyright-format
Hi,
Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 08:42:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I do feel like allowing either based on the whim of the packager is just
>> kind of bad. It produces inconsistent behavior to no real benefit for
>> anyone. If you install a Perl earlier in your PAT
Hi,
Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu 23 Aug 2018 at 12:27PM +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication_of_system_libraries
>
> Thank you for sharing this link -- it seems like Fedora have thought
> harder about this than we have, at least
Hi,
Arnaud Rebillout wrote:
> During all this time when I was questioning myself on the reason to
> un-bundle, the only official documentation I found was the short
> paragraph in the Debian Policy [1], which is quite thin. Only now,
> through the thread in debian-devel, I discover that there is
Hi Russ,
Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm looking for seconds for this patch to relax the current requirement
> back to a should.
[...]
> --- a/perl-policy.xml
> +++ b/perl-policy.xml
> @@ -533,7 +533,7 @@ $(MAKE) OPTIMIZE="-O2 -g -Wall"
>Script Magic
>
>
> -All packaged perl p
Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> It seems obvious to me that the above policy snippet was written in a
> time when the universe revolved around sysvinit. In current day and age
> sysvinit itself would be an "Alternate init system". We could update the
> snippet to say that any package providing support
Adam Borowski wrote:
> logind: an org.freedesktop.login1 D-Bus API implementation
> default-logind: distribution's default logind provider
Seconded.
I like this description because it doesn't make assumptions about how
many logind implementions there are or which is the current default,
which sh
Hi,
Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 12:29:50PM +0900, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> I hereby propose to drop section 1.6 Translations and the following
>> sentence: "When translations of this document into languages other
>> than English disagree with the English text, the English text t
Hi,
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> So, maybe something like:
>>
>> -b [; = ...]
>>
>> to build off of what we already have? (With, obviously, a bunch of that
>> syntax marked as optional.) If we ban "=" in , we can allow for
>> to be optional but some other key/value pair t
Russ Allbery wrote:
> If you want to do what vcswatch is doing (analyze the current code
> repository for Debian packaging for commits that haven't been uploaded),
> and the team is, like Haskell, using a single repository for all the
> packages, you need to be able to find that specific package i
Hi!
Niels Thykier wrote:
> I would like to propose that we drop or replace the following
> recommendation in Policy:
>
> """
> When a package has a configuration and build routine which takes a
> long time, or when the makefiles are poorly designed, or when build
> needs to run clean first, it is
Niels Thykier wrote:
> In
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules-gainrootapi
> we find the following example:
>
> """
> Examples of valid use of the gain root command:
>
> # sh-syntax (assumes set -e semantics for error handling)
> $DEB_GAIN_ROOT_CMD some-cmd --whi
Niels Thykier wrote:
> debhelper cannot see "inside" the upstream build system. If you modify
> a .c file, debhelper won't notice and will currently just skip the
> entire build. Alternatively, debhelper will have to invoke the build
> system and rely on it to not be flawed.
Yes, I think that w
Hi,
Sam Hartman wrote:
> I think there are at least two cases where this issue comes up and is
> important, and where using a debian revision without separate upstream
> tarballs is the right approach:
>
> 1) small packages currently maintained by the upstream maintainer where
> debian revision i
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Josh Triplett wrote:
>>> This change does not propose eliminating the concept of Essential, nor
>>> does it propose that any specific package become non-Essential.
>>
>> I think I'd be more suppor
Javier Serrano Polo wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 18:34:06 -0700 Jonathan Nieder
> wrote:
>> Even so, some *rough* consensus on the plan is very useful for
>> helping people evaluate that first step.
>
> Here is a rough plan:
>
>1. Policy: Packages should declar
Hi,
Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Mon 16 Nov 2020 at 04:12AM +01, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > On Sat, 2020-11-07 at 13:30:13 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>>> Could I ask you to explain your wanting to reduce the Essential set for
>>> the sake of small installation size in more detail, including some
>>> nu
Hi,
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Currently, Debian Policy is silent on when it's appropriate to use a
> native package, but there may be a project consensus aganist using
> native packages when the software has an existence outside of Debian.
I agree about this (modulo the bits discussed elsewhere in t
Hi,
Some possibly silly questions. Policy §11.6 recommends:
If your package needs to know what hostname to use on (for
example) outgoing news and mail messages which are generated
locally, you should use the file /etc/mailname. It will contain
the portion after th
Hi,
Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Donnerstag, 16. Dezember 2010, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Could you elaborate? I would think that making "dpkg --purge" exit
>> with nonzero status would be serious, though perhaps of the can-defer
>> kind.
>
> It's annoyin
Hi,
Since 2005 (452a1383), policy has recommended registering
documentation with doc-base. I'd like to revisit that recommendation,
see how well it is working, and discuss whether we can make it better.
Aron Xu wrote[1]:
> To be honest, I don't see the necessity to register those fcitx
> docume
Robert Luberda wrote:
> On 11.01.2011 09:27, Jonathan Nieder writes:
>> * The registered documentation is very sparse. It is not obvious
>> where any given kind of information is to be found (the categories are
>> especially unhelpful and I suspect something more faceted
(please drop cc's other than debian-policy in replies if you want to
work on that)
Hi Wookey,
Wookey wrote:
> Debian policy (8.2) says:
> ---
> It is recommended that supporting files and run-time support programs
> that do not need to be invoked manually by users, but are neverthele
From: Charles Plessy
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 17:48:24 +0900
---
Hi Charles,
Charles Plessy wrote:
> I attached here a patch that corrects a syntax error introduced by one of my
> previous patches, applied last September (45cbe74). The policy in the current
> master branch (9b45eca) currently doe
Bill Allombert wrote:
> Done as 11ced50c61b4b242baa34428de74d93d64e846cd.
Thanks, Bill. That was fast. :)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201103012
.
Requested-by: Mattias Ellert
Fixes: http://bugs.debian.org/599944
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder
---
Mattias Ellert wrote:
> I therefore suggest that the paragraph about Pre-Depends in section 7.2
> is amended with a cross-reference to the rule in section 3.5 about the
> requirem
status 2.
So it is allowed and perfectly sensible to make a build-arch target
without a build-indep target to go along with it. Tweak the wording
slightly to avoid suggesting otherwise.
Inspired-by: anatoly techtonik
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder
---
policy.sgml |2 +-
1 files cha
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
severity 609160 wishlist
usertags 609160 + packaging
quit
Hi Charles,
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 09:49:17PM +, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
>> Attached please find a patch that adds a copy of DEP5 to the
>> debian-policy package.
[...]
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
severity 613143 wishlist
usertags 613143 + normative discussion
quit
Hi Matthias, Aurelien, Santiago,
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Suggested change:
>
> --- /proc/self/fd/13 2011-02-13 09:12:50.142239544 +0100
> +++ policy.sgml 2011-02-13 09:12:01.565231
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
usertags 604397 + normative discussion
quit
(please consider dropping policy Bug#604397 or dpkg-buildpackage Bug#229357
from replies)
Hi,
Roger Leigh wrote:
[out of order for convenience]
> Just for the record, I've implemented support in debhelper's dh
> c
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
usertags 609162 + normative discussion
severity 609162 normal
quit
Hi Karl,
Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
> The debian policy section 9.5 [1] suggests using the package name as a
> file name when creating files in /etc/cron.d, /etc/cron.hourly,
> /etc/cron.daily
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
usertags 613046 + informative discussion
quit
Hi,
Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 14:25:40 +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> CFLAGS = $(shell dpkg-buildflags --get CFLAGS) -Wall -g
>>
>> While related to #578597, I believe it to be a distinct
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
clone 613946 -1 -2
retitle -1 debiandoc2html: titles should not have embedded tags
retitle -2 debiandoc2html: anchors should enclose heading text
severity -1 normal
severity -2 minor
reassign -1 debiandoc-sgml 1.2.20
reassign -2 debiandoc-sgml 1.2.20
usertag
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
usertags 606869 + informative
quit
Hi David,
David Prévot wrote:
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -8940,9 +8940,9 @@ name ["syshostname"]:
>
>
>If the window manager complies with - id="http
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
usertags 587377 + normative issue
quit
Guillem Jover wrote:
> This is not really a dpkg bug, the limitation is not actually coming
> from it, it's coming from the kernel and/or specific file system
> implementation. I don't consider it appropriate to add an
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
severity 609935 minor
clone 609935 -1
retitle -1 policy: clarify precedence and propagation of Section and Priority
usertags 609935 + informative issue
usertags -1 + informative issue
quit
Hi,
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> The Homepage control filed is
Hi,
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> Updating the patch should, I think, be done
> only after the draft is final and policy is ready to include it in the
> package (even if only in the policy VCS repository).
If you mean that there is no need to update to an intermediate
version, makes sense to me. Anyw
(-cc: Bug#229357)
Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Jonathan Nieder , 2011-03-01, 21:01:
>> So it seems to me that "dpkg-buildpackage -B" ought to be taught to
>> run the equivalent of
>>
>> debian/rules build-arch
>> if test "$?" = 2
>&
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On ke, 2011-03-02 at 03:33 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> If you mean that there is no need to update to an intermediate
>> version, makes sense to me. Anyway, getting any version ready to
>> include in the VCS (on a branch) seems worthwhile to
Sean Finney wrote:
> Having a warning in lintian for arbitrarily long (perhaps >= 256)
> filenames is totally reasonable i'd say, but there's no reason to
> otherwise throw out limits for the sake of having them.
Oh, I don't know.
Now that I check, the path provoking this was 269 characters
(inc
1 - 100 of 411 matches
Mail list logo
