ue to recommend contacting the base-passwd maintainer when the
postinst script needs to create a static UID.
The current base-passwd maintainer explains the reasoning for this
suggested change:
- Forwarded message from Colin Watson -
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 23:42:55 +0100
From: Colin Watson
T
lated, for a conflict or
breakage). In other words, if a version number is specified, this is
a request to ignore all Provides for that package name and consider
only real packages.
Would a versioned Provides:, too, get ignored if there is real package
with the same name present?
--
this year? How about organising a sprint to handle the current backlog?
This would raise everyone's spirits about making progress with Policy.
I would love to be involved.
Thank you for your consideration.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
the most pressing:
>
> - Triggers
> - Multiarch
> - systemd integration (there's a draft in an external repo)
> - FHS 3.0
>
> For the first two, having Guillem or someone else deeply involved in dpkg
> development on-hand would be hugely helpful since they'll have t
cense: BSD-3-clause
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
e the
place to do that.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
's fix this!
Russ has suggested sending out another d-d-a e-mail about Policy 4.x in
about a week's time. I'd like to include this sprint in that message, so
it would be great if you could take a look before then.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
e, but I wanted to make sure you were aware of
the docbook timeline.)
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ou could write up the
introduction, Russ, since you have a clearer idea of the purpose of this
d-d-a e-mail than I do.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
.
It is especially encouraging that the kernel already went through
exactly this transition.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
er to have this in our git repo than on the wiki. An
appendix is also significantly easier for people to find.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
(prominent examples: firefox-esr, intel-microcode)
>
> Is this widespread enough to be worth describing? It's kind of hard to
> describe.
I for one had assumed that there was no difference between -deb9u1 and
~deb9u1, so I'd like to see it documented.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
consensus? There
is certainly not a consensus that it's terrible).
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
rety, which would be ~debXuY as above.
Sorry, I meant s/-deb9u1/+deb9u1/.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
s bug get off-topic, I'll send you some other
comments about using native packages privately.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
repacking the tarball. The Developer's Reference already contains a
discussion of repacking upstream tarballs, so perhaps this should go
there?
Or we could use a footnote to Policy. I attach a patch doing that.
--
Sean Whitton
From 56fab75d2c803ae9afd8d2186613713b297f9138 Mon Sep 17 00:00
at Policy has the authority to do that,
and I don't think it would be desirable.
A footnote with a link to the REJECT-FAQ sounds useful. Here's a patch.
> Maybe it belong to devref.
Perhaps that should be a separate bug, if we're going to use this one to
discuss ad
appendix.
>
> I'm kind of leaning towards the last, honestly.
I've taken a stab at this, in branch bug866192-spwhitton of
debian-policy.git repo. Reviews very welcome.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hello,
On Sun, Jul 02, 2017 at 02:23:57PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Sean Whitton writes:
> > I've created Teams/Policy/bits on gobby.debian.org to draft this. I've
> > written some text about the sprint. Perhaps you could write up the
> > introduction, Russ, s
control: tag -1 +pending
On Sun, Jul 02, 2017 at 02:02:20PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Sean Whitton writes:
>
> > I've taken a stab at this, in branch bug866192-spwhitton of
> > debian-policy.git repo. Reviews very welcome.
>
> This looks good to me. Thanks!
Given that this is indeed not normative, nor even a change to the text
of Policy, I've applied my patch.
I've also marked the change as closing this bug, but if Bastian feels
that adding the footnote does not fully address the concerns he had when
filing this bug, he should feel quite wel
ce this is informative rather than normative, I've gone ahead and
applied the change. Thank you for your review.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
allay some of the concerns that
Tobi raised: barely-established teams aren't likely to have a team
homepage/documentation/policy document.
[1] https://www.stackage.org/
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
identify who to contact to participate in the development of
+the upstream source code.
Packages in the contrib or
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
package in ages. So I don't see how my proposal introduces any new
problems; it's an improvement because it removes a source of confusion.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
dh_* tool that takes care of the requirement, we would
then need new footnotes to almost every section of Policy. That would
be a bad idea.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 12:21:40PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> No, the policy doesn't talk about dh_* and other helpers (except in
> footnotes).
Right. In a sense, Policy is the reference against which such helpers
are developed.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Descr
place.
How about adding a section to that guide listing links to packaging
guides for specific types of packages, such as fonts?
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
rm non-maintainer uploads.
> Of course, out of context of this request someone might think "of
> course the maintainer would sign the .dsc file--who else would do
> that?"
Well, again, it could be someone other than the maintainer, perfomring
an NMU.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
olicy
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
version 3 of the License, or
> +(at your option) any later version.
> License: GPL-3+
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
al least un-favourite :-).
Do you still have some interest in this, Ian? Or anyone else?
We are hoping to migrate Policy to rST built by Sphinx. Maybe there is
a flowchart tool that integrates particularly well with Sphinx. CCing
Hideki in case he knows.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Des
; in README.md.
Please let me know if I've misunderstood "Wording:"'s purpose.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
e.
> Hope the sprint is going well! I should be on IRC to join in starting
> sometime tomorrow.
Looking forward to that.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:55:33PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> We should surely import the diagrams as-is.
Russ -- you were the one that suggested generating them. What do you
think about importing them as-is now?
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ince we're trying to reduce the
number of footnotes in Policy.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
control: tag -1 +pending
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 11:18:56PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Please always quote what you are seconding. This avoid confusion.
Thanks for the tip, Bill.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
tion).
>
> Alternative wordings welcome; I am not entirely certain the one above
> is all that well.
I think this wording is fine. Seconded.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
m) and why, for instance.
Agreed, but we probably don't need to list all those roles in policy.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
e change.
Could you prepare a patch for the versoin you like that applies cleanly
against the current git HEAD,[1] and seek seconds for it, please? If
policy is released before you can do that, we can just clone the bug or
similar.
[1] https://anonscm.debian.org/git/dbnpolicy/policy.g
Dear Marga,
On the wiki[1] you say that your maintainer script diagrams are "GPL".
Does this mean GPL-2+, GPL_3+, or something else?
I'm planning to include this diagrams in the Debian Policy manual
directly.
Thanks.
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/MaintainerScripts
-
at the previous wording was almost self-contradictory:
it says the system is probably unusable, but can be /used/ to install
further packages.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-b used per the previous
+ paragraph, must not do anything that might require root
+ privilege.
The build target may need to run the
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
e causing us to file bugs to upstream saying "could you rename this
file that our Debian build process doesn't even use, please?" (e.g.)
Would it be possible to permit Files: to be a line-based list? Then
there could be one glob per line, and I think they could contain spaces.
T
and build-b targets are not invoked by the build target, instead
directly invoked by the binary target, then (i) does not apply, and
indeed (ii) applies and they will be invoked as root.
Is that why you want to delete that paragraph?
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Uploaders field must be present and must
- contain at least one human with their personal email address.
-
-
The Uploaders field in debian/control can
be folded.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
stallinit,
+dh_systemd_start, etc.
+
--
Sean Whitton
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 9cd182b..2b37df8 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -7053,12 +7053,6 @@ Built-Using: grub2 (= 1.99-9), loadlin (= 1.6e-1)
in /run sho
common than having whitespace in filenames.
My suggestion was that the Files: field could be /either/ a line-based
list or a space-separated list -- is there something that would break?
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
o available
-from the Debian web mirrors at https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/menu-policy/";>https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/menu-policy/.
+If a package installs a FreeDesktop desktop entries, it must
+not also install a Debian menu entry.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ime, imposing this requirement would make a lot of packages
buggy. Changes to policy are not meant to do this. By contrast, my
patch reflects a consensus that we can be confident already exists.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
IA by the MIA team according
> to the MIA process, how can you *find* all teams and team-maintained
> packages where this maintainer was the only or last active team member
> when there is no Uploaders: field?
I'll reply to this when replying to Tobias' remarks.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
of the neglected one, MIA team wise. This will be amplified
> when there is no human responsible person named.
Could you explain further how this would amplify the problem? I agree
that this is a serious problem, but I don't see how this change would
amplify it.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ar that there is a reference back to the
> earlier definition?
>
> If you meant to get rid of that, no problem.
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to the paragraph I
deleted?
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
val for the patch, with the plural/singular fixed?
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
formats?
Please let me know how this has been handled previously.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
nostic between Debian's init
systems"
Please feel free to improve on this, and thank you very much for your
patches.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hello Mike,
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 03:09:30PM +, Mike Gabriel wrote:
> How would differentiate between a blank in a file name and a blank as a
> separator?
If you needed blanks in filenames, you'd use a line-based list.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
I do agree with you that this situation where they are
deps of the binary target is bad.
Interested to hear what Santiago thinks.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ing-checklist
> (and possibly invalidate other external references).
>
> I'm not wedded to that as the best way of doing this; just not sure what
> would be better.
Thanks. Fixed.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ding, but thought it'd be useful to point at the
> previous discussion about this very subject.
Thank you for digging this up!
I have no desire to argue in favour of either your patch or mine, but
since mine has been okayed by three TC members in this bug, in the
interests of getting th
lly /contributing/ to the
package, not just those who signed the uploads.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ally
generated, just generate it when you need it -- why store it in the
source package?
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
eed to block such a feature that would work for 90% of
packages until we have a policy about the [ name ] syntax. It can begin
as a useful heuristic.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
documented in Policy. Is this still
true? Would you be able to propose a patch against the Policy git repo
as it currently stands?
Thanks!
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
I think that is sub-optimal.
>
> Making changes to debian-policy (if deemed appropriate) to allow
> upstream binary signature files would affect at least lintian,
> dpkg-dev, uscan, and Debian maintainer guides.
This sounds like a new policy bug to be filed :)
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
es to policy again -- please avoid committing to master in the
interim.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Build-Depends-Arch relationship on a
> - non-main package),
> + non-main package) unless that package
> + is only listed as a non-default alternative for a package in
> + main,
>
>
some weeks.
Any objections/alternatives?
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
control: forcemerge 787816 -1
Hello,
The latest version of the FHS does not have /usr/games, so merging this
with the bug about updating our FHS version.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Version: 4.0.1.0
We believe that this was fixed in the most recent release of Policy.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Aug 11 2017, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 09:03:54 -0700
> Sean Whitton wrote:
>> We can try to contact sphinx upstream but it might take some weeks.
>
> And it should be filed as issue if we want such feature to put it into
> upstream
> https
Hello,
On Fri, Aug 11 2017, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 07:53:51AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> Version: 3.9.4.0
>>
>> We believe this was fixed in a recent release.
>
> What make you believe that ?
From the changelog:
* build-arch and bu
defines these as Debian currently
understands them.
Later, we could narrow the definition of build environment by adding
more constraints, but we're not there yet.
[1] https://reproducible-builds.org/docs/definition/
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
rg/docs/definition/>`_.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
generate different binary packages).
often creates either static linking or shared library conflicts, and,
most importantly, increases the difficulty of handling security
vulnerabilities in the duplicated code.
+
+.. [#]
+ This is Debian's precisification of the `reproducibl
On Sat, Aug 12 2017, Ximin Luo wrote:
> Thanks! Seconded.
Just to be clear, we are waiting on one more second for the version
that refers to build and target architecture.
--
Sean Whitton
g bugs. This is
how policy changes are meant to work -- they control bug severities
against packages, not what appears on tracking web pages.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
le according to policy?
Yes, if your bug is of 'wishlist' severity.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ait until dpkg has defined
behaviour for the field, as it will make documenting it much easier. It
will also allow us to be more confident that there is no serious
disagreement about the purpose of the field.
I couldn't find a bug against dpkg, but if there is one, it should
probabl
The majority of bugs will skip this stage.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
;s syndicated to Planet Debian. So indeed, I'll
be posting the output of this script to my blog shortly.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
libhtml-parser-perl3.72-3+b2
ii libtext-template-perl 1.46-1
-- no debconf information
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
s at the end of the
upgrading checklist entry.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
subsubsection. It should
become clear once we've got that other text together.
Thank you again for your work so far.
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/DependencyHell#Multi-Arch:_foreign
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
sible through the search path
>/usr/include/ is amended, permitting files to
> be accessible through the search path
>/usr/include/triplet where
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
would be nice if you could rebase but I will
happily do this on your behalf as I was partly responsible for the
switch
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
executed
> program. In other words, the behavior is as though the arguments
> were passed directly to execvp, bypassing the shell. (xterm's
> behavior of falling back on using the shell if -e had a single
> argument and exec failed is permissible but not required.)
Seconde
On Tue, Aug 22 2017, Ben Finney wrote:
> On 20-Aug-2017, Sean Whitton wrote:
>
>> - note that this bug doesn't apply to policy's HEAD anymore because
>> we've switched to rST
>
> Did you find a conflict? I have pulled the latest HEAD (commit hash
> f0f3
each chapter,
but we want a single policy.txt. We are waiting on better upstream
support.
In the meantime, you might consider using the info output format.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
the upstream one
+as well as other changes and updates to the package. [#]_
The format of the ``debian/changelog`` allows the package building tools
to discover which version of the package is being built and find out
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
fix.
Whoever fixes this will need to rename all the images to have a
debian-policy- prefix. This is a convention when you install images
into /usr/share/info.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
t; not existing).
Not sure what you're asking. Let me know if what I just pushed could be
better.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
elog. It looks at least a bit redundant.
Hmm, I thought that it was needed as it is offered for download on
www.debian.org. Russ, can you remember how that download link worked
previously?
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ing to look something up.
I think that maybe we should reassign this bug to www.debian.org to
request rewriting of the old URIs?
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
403 not 404; I think it's a .htaccess issue on the www team's
side.
Perhaps you could file a bug against www.debian.org.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
nless a new
feature arrives from upstream.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
hat
> preclude also providing the multi-page rendering?
Ah, sorry, I think there are two bugs here:
- it would be nice to include the multi-page rendering in the package
- since we're publishing only the single-page version on www.debian.org,
we need to rewrite the links
--
Sean Whitton
sig
=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
control: retitle -1 Include multi-page HTML in package
^ see below for explanation
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 22 2017, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:10:36PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> - it would be nice to include the multi-page rendering in the package
>
>
iced on the info files it's just worse as they do not
> get their section numbers reset so they keep incrementing from the
> last chapter index. For example «Binary packages (…)» used to be
> appendix B, now it's 2, but on the info file it's 14.
Okay, that sounds like
1 - 100 of 727 matches
Mail list logo
