On 06/15/2018 02:06 PM, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Patch:
>
>> diff --git a/policy/ch-files.rst b/policy/ch-files.rst
>> index 90ae58a..f31a3b4 100644
>> --- a/policy/ch-files.rst
>> +++ b/policy/ch-files.rst
>> @@ -203,9 +203,9 @@ may instead be easier to check the exit status of
>> commands directly
On 07/03/2018 11:56 AM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> How about the attached patch?
>
> Complete patch series (including non-normative) updated here:
> https://salsa.debian.org/smcv/policy/merge_requests/1/diffs
> Seconded.
Cheers,
Julien
Control: tag -1 - patch
On 02/16/2017 07:44 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Package: developers-reference
> Version: 3.4.18
> Severity: normal
> Control: tags -1 patch
> Control: affects -1 devscripts
>
This bug doesn't seem to actually include a patch.
Cheers,
Julien
On 07/23/2018 04:45 AM, Sean Whitton wrote:
> control: tag -1 +patch
>
> Hello,
>
> 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
On 08/04/2018 07:14 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Sean Whitton writes ("Beginnings of a patch to add netbase to
> build-essential"):
>> Ian also thinks that package builds should be able to access the
>> information normally contained in /etc/protocols and /etc/services by
>> means of the C standard li
On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 12:41:48 +0200, Gioele Barabucci wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
>
> Hello,
>
> 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`,
On 11/14/18 9:07 AM, Angus Lees wrote:
> Suggestions welcome - I imagine this is not a unique situation. I think
> our options are:
> - no rust-gdb manpage at all
> - a .so stub or symlink to gdb.1 (current situation)
> - a manually-created stub manpage that just refers the reader to
> gdb-doc/gdb
On 2/16/19 7:08 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Friday, February 15, 2019 08:59:41 PM Sean Whitton wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Use of the Build-Conflicts field is currently mostly optional, but Ian
>> Jackson and I have been working on text for Debian Policy that would
>> require its use in certain case
On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 09:44:25PM +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> Policy section 11.8.5, point 1 says
>
> > If one or more of the fonts so packaged are necessary for proper
> > operation of the package with which they are associated the font
> > package may be Recommended; if the fonts merely provid
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 22:14:10 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Hello. This is an attempt to put the basis for fixing this bug:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=837060
>
> As an example, packages tzdata, mount or e2fsprogs are not build-essential
> and afaik have not been for
experimental is to use your personal web
> space on people.debian.org.
>
> -
> -When uploading to unstable a package which had bugs fixed
> -in experimental, please consider using the option
> --v to dpkg-buildpackage to finally get
> -them closed.
> -
>
>
>
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 14:18:06 +0100, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> Futhermore lintian warns when using +deb60u1, and it seems to confuse the
> bts a bit. See for example the version graph #603456, placing testings
> nagiosgrapher/1.7.1-2+deb60u1 above unstables nagiosgrapher/1.7.1-2.1, I'
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 11:44:56 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> This will only be done with the approval of the release team, who
> I've copied in.
>
I don't think that's not going to happen. Try again for wheezy, and
maybe you can manage not to wait until the last minute of the freeze.
Cheers,
Ju
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 12:57:05 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 11:44:56 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> > This will only be done with the approval of the release team, who
> > I've copied in.
> >
> I don't think that's not g
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 14:25:40 +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.9.1.0
> Severity: minor
>
> Hey
>
> The example in 4.9.1 suggests to set CFLAGS in a way that completely
> overrides values from dpkg-buildpackage/dpkg-buildflags[1]:
>
> CFLAGS = -Wall -g
>
> Th
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 15:14:04 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> That said helper tools like "dh" should be free to use dpkg-buildflags
> to set environment variables that ./configure and other similar calls
> can inspect and use.
>
The usual way to pass CFLAGS to configure is as a command line a
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 22:40:52 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> From discussion on IRC earlier this evening, it looks like the most
> pragmatic approach will be to get the apt and aptitude sbuild
> resolvers to strip the alternatives (after arch reduction), which
> will make them behave pretty much e
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 22:17:32 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> If I had to make a proposal, I'd suggest maxima of
>
> _XOPEN_PATH_MAX / 2 (= 512) for paths, to leave room for chroots
> _XOPEN_NAME_MAX - 16 (= 239) for filenames, to leave room for
> .dpkg-divert.tmp. Forget ReiserFS 3. :)
>
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 16:25:46 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> The udeb prefix is added if Package-Type: udeb is set.
>
Does XC-Package-Type also work? debhelper uses
/^(?:X[BC]*-)?Package-Type:\s*(.*)/ to populate the package type.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 21:30:49 +0100, Robert Luberda wrote:
> I implemented a work-around in ispell 3.3.02-3, so the bug no longer
> affects ispell. But the issue still exists, and I think it's the Policy
> to blame of it in the first place. Build-*Indep fields are pretty much
> useless if build
Full quoting because you didn't cc the policy list when reassigning...
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 05:03:47 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> reassign 620566 debian-policy
> severity 620566 normal
> tags 620566 patch
> retitle 620566 Sync upstream version format with what dpkg accepts now
> thanks
>
> O
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 20:07:57 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Julien Cristau writes:
> > On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 05:03:47 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
>
> >> Well, while I generally agree dpkg does not need to be as strict as
> >> policy when it might make sense
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:00:14 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Would "lockuser" need to be in the adduser package? Given that
> adduser is only priority:important, it's not guaranteed to be present
> when postrm is run, so the operation could fail. Maybe passwd is a
> better place for it, given th
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 13:49:53 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Currently, section 9.1.1 relaxes the FHS requirement that /lib64 and
> /usr/lib64 be used, but it doesn't prohibit installing files in that
> location. However, due to the way Debian handles this (with symlinks),
> bad things happen in
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 08:32:55 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index c1ff4b4..0f1dbf9 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -4628,7 +4628,7 @@ Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.1), exim | mail-transport-agent
> Relationships may be restricted to a
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 18:51:10 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Lintian suggests the following command to determine correct name for a shared
> library package:
>
> objdump -p /path/to/libfoo-bar.so.1.2.3 | sed -n
> -e's/^[[:space:]]*SONAME[[:space:]]
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 17:26:04 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> >These dependencies must be added to the binary
> > package when it is built, since they may change
>
> This means packages must not hard-code library dependencies. It
> also seems like good policy, but I
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 23:10:46 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: wishlist
>
> How should packages behave if there is no explicit "parallel=N" in
> DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS? I saw two different approaches:
>
> 1) Behave (roughly) like if parallel=1 was set.
>
> 2) Be cleve
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 18:01:52 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I would like to know people's feeling about this.
>
Seeing how you're about the only one in favour of removing the policy
should, I'm not sure why you think raising it to tech-ctte will change
that.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCR
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 21:23:47 +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> reopen 662649
> reassign 662649 debian-policy
> thanks
>
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 08:03:55PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 5 Mar 2012, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> >
> > > Package: base-files
> > > Version: 6.7
> > > Severity:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 15:31:52 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Could someone who has the time to put together a script for this check to
> see whether this is actually true? (Namely, that the only thing in
> required are essential packages and their dependencies.)
>
As far as I can tell the follo
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 14:25:12 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Okay, once more for the win. Here is the current version of the patch,
> incorporating substantial improvements from Jonathan Nieder and hopefully
> incorporating all the feedback in subsequent discussion.
>
> I'm looking for seconds
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 10:51:45 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> tag 701081 patch
> thanks
>
> Dear all,
>
> I think that it emerges from the discussion that there are good uses of
> Unicode, and that somebody would need to step up and ensure that a dozen of
> packages are corrected if we were to
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 18:01:48 -0400, David Prévot wrote:
> As discussed on #d-release, the version scheme advice could be improved,
> so should the distribution declared in changelog, for the testing and
> {old,}stable upload (including the -security ones), in order to have
> only one scheme to
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 20:53:28 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There's been quite some confusion lately over the right version scheme for
> uploads to stable(-security), and it doesn't help that the devref's advice
> is not currently correct.
>
> Can you please apply attached patch swi
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 22:18:09 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> Package: developers-reference
> Tags: patch
>
> Hi,
>
> Attached patch updates the developer's reference to advise people to use
> "wheezy-security" and the likes for security updates, not
> "stable-security".
>
>
Applied, thanks
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 11:26:01 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:09:17AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> > On Sun, 12 May 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > >
> > > I also added "through the interst or activate
> > > directives"
> > > after "When a configured package ac
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 09:27:19 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > About the problem of triggers being called with Depends not satisfied, can
> > you
> > give more explanations or suggest some text for the warning ? Would it be
> > enough to
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 08:00:55 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> does the current patch (attached) address your concerns ? If yes, would
> you second it ?
>
Sorry, I don't feel confident to second anything trigger-related.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:45:48 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 2708242..90ae9fe 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -7021,15 +7021,14 @@ Built-Using: grub2 (= 1.99-9), loadlin (= 1.6e-1)
> stable release of Debian supp
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 18:39:20 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> So, I propse adding to the list of exceptions in policy section 9.1.1:
>
>The FHS requirement that architecture-independent application-specific
>static files be located in /usr/share is relaxed to a suggestion.
>
>In particu
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 23:53:46 +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> Even example.org is not safe because registered could be possible to
> add a footnote
>
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to say above.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 23:38:24 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 12:28:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Bill Allombert writes:
> >
> > > + 4294967294:
> > > +
> > > +
> > > + (uid_t)(-2) == (gid_t)(-2) must
> > > + not be used,
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 13:48:14 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Policy §5.6.12 reads: “The may contain only alphanumerics
> and the characters ‘.’ ‘+’ ‘-’ ‘:’ ‘~’ (full stop, plus, hyphen, colon,
> tilde) and should start with a digit. […] if there is
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 13:16:24 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 11:34:20 +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> > > Lintian now detect script creating user pointing to /home.
>
> > After a chat under #debian-q
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 20:47:08 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, Aug 08, 2015 at 08:12:28AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
> >
> > I think that the mention of quinn-diff can be removed from the Developer's
> > Reference. This can be done in two ways.
> >
> > - Remove §A.7.1 on quinn-di
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:44:10 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Dear Santiago and everybody,
>
> how about the following ? (in section 4.5)
>
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -1822,12 +1822,16 @@ zope.
>
> Copyright: debian/copyright
>
> Every {+sou
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 18:09:16 +0200, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015, Julien Cristau wrote:
> >FWIW I disagree with this change, I don't think making a new requirement
> >for source packages is the way to solve NEW review workflow.
>
> Oh,
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 20:45:43 +0200, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> But policy says that there "should" be such a copyright file. Violating such
> a clause is at least an important bug.
It's *at most* an important bug:
These classifications are roughly equivalent to the bug severities
_
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 22:17:33 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> I think Debian Policy should consider relaxing the "should" in §11.11
> (btw, is that normative even when written in lowercase?).
>
Debian Policy doesn't use RFC's uppercase SHOULD/MUST/MAY anywhere...
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
for some time I've been uploading packages with Maintainer set to a
mailing list and no Uploaders field. In cases where some package kind
of fit within a team, but noone cares specifically about that individual
package, I feel it's better than settin
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 21:54:29 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:10:31PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > for some time I've been uploading packages with
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 22:30:10 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:57:27PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 21:54:29 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:10:31PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:06:50 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I suggest to change
>
> | If there are development files associated with a shared
> | library, the source package needs to generate a binary
> | development package named librarynamesoversion-dev, or if you
> | prefer only
On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 23:23:22 +, Anthony Fok wrote:
> This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script.
>
> foka pushed a commit to branch master
> in repository developers-reference.
>
> commit ab0b6f45b3eb561da0a25bb4a2f444ce0b410759
> Author: Anthony Fok
> Date: Thu
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 15:33:53 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> >The relations allowed are ‘<<’, ‘<=’, ‘=’, ‘>=’ and ‘>>’ for strictly
> >earlier, earlier or equal, exactly equal, later or equal and strictly
> >later, respectively. The deprecated forms ‘<’ and ‘>’ were confusingly
> >used to mean earl
On Sun, Jul 1, 2007 at 12:49:58 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> If it says "version N or later", we should of course point to the
> *earliest* version to give users the choice which version they want.
>
I don't understand this "of course", nor do I understand how the file we
point to relates to th
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.3.0
Section 11.8.6 refers to /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults/, and mandates
a conflict on 'xbase (<< 3.3.2.3a-2)', which is not even in oldstable.
I think this should be dropped now, see attached diff against 3.7.3.0.
Cheers,
Julien
--- policy.sgml.orig 2008-05
[dropping -release from Cc]
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 15:11:44 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > ttf-opensymbol comes out of openoffice.org itself (easily checkable) and
> > is needed for basic operation. You won't get any bullet in OOos lists
> > withou
On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 18:46:54 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> dpkg has supported comments (ignoring lines starting with #) in
> debian/control since 1.10.11. We should at least consider documenting
> them. (Encountered while processing lintian's bug backlog.)
>
Hi,
should this be restricted to
---
I'm not sure if this is the best place to put this information, so
suggestions are welcome.
policy.sgml |6 ++
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 36f51aa..ba224f0 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -2446,6 +2446,1
meh. forgot to actually send this to the bug.
Cheers,
Julien
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 18:54 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> ---
> I'm not sure if this is the best place to put this information, so
> suggestions are welcome.
>
>
> policy.sgml |6 ++
> 1 files c
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 22:07:36 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Julien Cristau writes:
>
> > meh. forgot to actually send this to the bug.
>
> Thank you!
>
> It occurred to me to check behavior with multiline fields as well. Here's
> a slightly modified vers
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 17:14:20 +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> But in this manner there is a risk of unneeded upload, in order to
> increase policy version or to remove warning from lintian about old policy.
> I think to much upload could confuse also the developers.
>
If the only reason fo
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 12:15 +0100, Richard Atterer wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 01:07:56AM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
> > However, the original BDF version can contain ASCII comments that are
> > not preserved in the PCF version. These comments often contain
> > information such as author, copyr
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 07:52 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> This recommendation needs to be elminated entirely. It is *not* ok for
> packages that provide libraries to stick extra linker paths in the global
> configuration, whether by modifying ld.so.conf or by adding to
> /etc/ld.so.conf.d. Eithe
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 12:27 +1300, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> Package maintainer scripts may prompt the user if necessary.
> Prompting must be done by communicating through a program, such
> as debconf, which conforms to the Debian Configuration
> Management Specificat
On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 10:27 +1300, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> That seems to be accepted by everyone, so I've pushed it to policy now.
>
> I hope that's the right thing... Please tell me if I've done something
> the wrong way, or whatever.
It looks like you've modified the 3.8.1.0 changelog entry i
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.1.0
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
I don't know whether to remove just this part, or everything relating to
X11R6. Opinions?
Cheers,
Julien
From: Julien Cristau
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 20:29:23 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Drop requirement to pre-depend o
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.1.0
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
There's no reason for this to stay.
From: Julien Cristau
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 20:38:45 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] Remove /etc/X11/XF86Config-4 FHS exception
---
policy.sgml |7 ---
1 files changed, 0 inser
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.1.0
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
The Speedo directory isn't part of the default X font path for a long
time, and libxfont in lenny disabled support for speedo fonts.
From: Julien Cristau
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 20:36:30 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Disco
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 21:57 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 975df94..a5c9d13 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -5697,12 +5697,6 @@ rmdir /usr/local/share/emacs 2>/dev/null || true
> by any particular mail agents. The use of th
On Fri, 2009-04-03 at 13:25 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 11:49:32AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Julien Cristau writes:
> >
> > > diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> > > index 5cd463e..9091412 100644
> > >
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 19:57 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I was about to apply this, but then realized that it leaves the following,
> which seems a bit odd and self-contradictory:
>
>
> The installation of files into subdirectories
> of /usr/X11R6/include/X11/ an
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 02:30 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Or is RC too much? Or fine now?
Anything > normal would be too much IMO.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 14:17 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mittwoch, 8. April 2009, Paul Wise wrote:
> > How about this:
> >
> > Game a gets installed and ships /var/games
> > Game b gets installed and ships /var/games
> > Game a gets purged and removes /var/games
> > User starts game b
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 05:08:38 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> how about:
>
> The installation of files into subdirectories of
> /usr/X11R6/is now prohibited. Include files
> should be installed into /usr/include/X11/. For
> files tha
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 16:40:34 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 0140043..144cbfb 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -2588,6 +2588,14 @@ Package: libc6
> package control file when the source package has the same
> nam
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 16:07:27 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that Debian policy (§5.6.14) states that the control field
> distribution may contain several distributions (comma-separated). But the
space-separated, actually.
> Debien Developers Reference (§5.5) states that “
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 18:50:42 -0400, Andres Mejia wrote:
> @@ -2723,7 +2725,8 @@ Package: libc6
> In the main debian/control file in the source
> package, or in the source package control file
> .dsc, one may specify a list of architectures
> - separated by
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 07:30:57 -0400, Andres Mejia wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 May 2009 06:51:58 Julien Cristau wrote:
> > This makes it sound like you can't mix architecture names and
> > architecture wildcards. Is that on purpose?
>
> Current policy has this wording a
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 11:53:19 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Jun 2009, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> > It is not an alternative:
> > - It is ugly
> > - it is not on root partition
> >
> > The ugly part it is IMHO the most important part.
>
> Ugliness is relative. I have no problem wi
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 19:13:23 -0700, Martin Dorey wrote:
> debian-policy appears to define Installed-Size's units as thousands of bytes:
>
> > 5.6.20 Installed-Size
> > This field appears in the control files of binary packages, and in the
> > Packages files. It gives the total amount of disk
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 09:20:51 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> As far as branches are concerned, the default branch should point to
> the debian packaging branch and that's it.
And how do you do that, when the debian and upstream repos are the same?
That seems to be a fairly arbitrary limitatio
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 23:54:13 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Julien Cristau writes:
>
> > Ping Russ? :)
>
> Sorry about the long delay on the rewrite of the X installation
> directory section. Here's proposed rewording for the whole section.
> How does this
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 13:29:48 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> I formally object to the part '(in other words, the size in kibibytes)'.
>
> (I believe this change is not informative and only serve the purpose of
> endorsing a standard which does not meet consensus in Debian.)
>
+1.
Cheers,
Jul
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 09:57:04 -0400, Jonathan Yu wrote:
> Oh. Interesting. I was (clearly) unaware of that. How recently was
> this? What was the reasoning behind it?
I think this is the part where you do your homework.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 13:33:57 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Raphaël Hertzog writes:
>
> > In response to http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=494714 I
> > would like that the policy be updated to allow the Binary field in .dsc
> > and .changes to span over multiple lines.
>
> Sorr
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 13:37:39 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The following wording has received one second and needs an additional
> second to be committed to the next revision of Policy. Is everyone happy
> with it?
>
> > --- a/policy.sgml
> > +++ b/policy.sgml
> > @@ -8885,6 +8885,15 @@ name
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 16:02:50 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes:
> > Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> Sorry about the delay in dealing with this. I've now committed:
> >>
> >>
> >> Installed-Size
> >>
> >>
> >>This field appears in the control file
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 19:43:29 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think at this point, now that debconf is mandatory for all but essential
> packages, removing the guarantee of a controlling terminal is
> uncontroversial. This bug has been open for a while and I'd like to put
> it to bed. Here's p
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 18:37:05 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > 2) These packages may just symlink
> > /usr/share/doc/${package name}-${debug suffix} to
> > /usr/share/doc/${package name}
> > (and of course, depend on ${package name}
>
> 5) There m
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 13:11:00 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 0bf8253..100917d 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -5584,6 +5584,35 @@ libbar 1 bar1 (>= 1.0-1)
>
>
>
> +
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 23:38:17 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> That's unfortunate. Imagine the following scenario:
> 1. Package P is released in sarge, with version 1.0-1.
> 2. Package P is installed on a system S, running sarge.
> 3. etch is released with P 1.0-1.
> 4. A security bug is found in
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 14:06:17 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 11:39:40AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 23:38:17 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> > > That's unfortunate. Imagine the following scenario:
> > >
Hi,
it's been pointed out to me that we violate FHS ever since [1] is
included in Debian.
The FHS says "All X Window System manual pages must have an x appended
to the filename."
Now there are some options.
1) add an exception in policy to allow the removal of this x suffix
2) revert this change
Please don't remove the debian-x cc…
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 15:49:52 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 02:29:09PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > it's been pointed out to me that we violate FHS ever since [1] is
> > incl
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 20:50:30 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> +
> + Applications may also use a single subdirectory under
> + /usr/lib/triplet.
> +
Is /lib/ intentionally left out here? I don't know how likely
that is, but if pe
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 20:50:30 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 0bf8253..347c0bf 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -5584,6 +5584,40 @@ libbar 1 bar1 (>= 1.0-1)
>
>
>
> +
ce.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/misc>.
> The second depends on the first.
>
fwiw
Reviewed-by: Julien Cristau
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
