x patch which implements
> section numbering in plain text:
>
> https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/pull/4218
>
> I haven't interacted with Sphinx upstream before so I don't know
> whether they're likely to respond quickly.
It's been merged! Tha
#x27; patch against Policy?
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ypo here|
> //
Thanks. Fixed in git.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
t
> package reduces repository disk usage.
I suspect it increases dak's workload, though, due to all the extra
binary packages.
> 2. It helps to solve the Multi-Arch file refcounting problem.
I'm not aware of this; could you refer me to a description of the
problem?
Thanks.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 07 2018, Javier Serrano Polo wrote:
> X-Debbugs-CC: a...@debian.org, ballo...@debian.org,
>spwhit...@spwhitton.name, r...@debian.org
>
> El dc 07 de 02 de 2018 a les 08:56 -0700, Sean Whitton va escriure:
>> > X-Debbugs-CC:
>>
>> This is
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 07 2018, Javier Serrano Polo wrote:
> El dc 07 de 02 de 2018 a les 09:57 -0700, Sean Whitton va escriure:
>> > Do you receive my messages from the list?
>> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2018/02/threads.html
>>
>> Yes.
>
> I do
ial...
In particular:
sphinx-common (>= 1.6.5),
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
around, except in situations where that can't make
sense.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ring seconds etc.), so we would want to
ensure the policy is more complete than it is now.
If you want to go ahead and do this, please file a bug against
debian-policy, with a patch that adds the JavaScript policy to our repo.
(There wouldn't be much point in filing such a bug without a patc
&& git am --continue`
did the trick.
Thank you for the patch.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
, and perhaps incorporating them into our package
is the way to do that. But that's a discussion for another day.)
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
een agreed
> upon -- thus, it'd be good to provide guidelines even before they're
> enforced with code.
Just to note that since Policy is about the contents of source and
binary packages, not about the behaviour of dak, this is a case where
our convention of changing the arch
opped the thing about tags as the solution of bumping the Debian
revision is simpler so it keeps Policy's suggested solution easier to
read. Admittedly doesn't help with native packages but those can just
have their patch level bumped.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
version number
> after the epoch, you can just increment the Debian revision, which
> doesn't need to start at 1 or be consecutive.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
it's basically a sensible convention, almost everyone will start using
it, even if it is not their number one choice of solution. But then we
have enough of a consensus, so it's no longer problematic to change
Policy.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
7;m grateful for your interest in
working on this. Moreover, I want to see this bug closed as much as you
do.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
m cannot interpret (such as ALPHA or pre-), or with
> silly orderings.
> +
> + If you think that increasing the epoch is the right situation,
> + please consult debian-devel before doing so
> + (even in experimental).
For consistency, s/please/you should/.
Seconds?
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
f d-devel happened twice in your patch.
This is Ian responding to the fact that epochs are discussed in two
places.
I would rather fix that in a separate bug.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
pened when people have tried to resolve
this bug before, but I'd be very glad to be proved wrong!
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ies required for running the get-orig-source target.
The Developer's Reference seems like a more appropriate place for a
convention that it is not possible to specify precisely.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hello,
I've submitted a proposal for a Policy BoF and intend to run a rolling
sprint on Policy bugs, the latter throughout DebCamp and DebConf.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ould be caused by forbidding that?
Semantically, it seems we should allow things like this:
Depends: foo (>= 2)
Recommends: foo (>= 3)
but I don't yet see why Policy needs to say anything about it.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
thanks for sharing your experience in Ubuntu. Those of us
working on dgit don't contribute to any downstreams (AFAIK) so it can be
a bit of a blind spot at times.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
at things look like once we reach the end of that work
before escalating this bug anywhere.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
using what
the difference is between these two suites, because their names are so
similar.
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/03/msg00010.html
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
n, then simply wait for a response as now. Please
> continue to file the bug in any case, both for tracking purposes and a
> location
> for discussion should any turn out to be required.
devref's discussion of uploading to stable-proposed-updates needs
updating for this change.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
nd".
>
> It would be useful to have the same for Hg, for instance:
>
> "In the case of Git and Hg, the value consists of a URL, optionally
> followed by the word -b the name of a branch in the indicated
> repository, following the syntax of the git clone and hg
t; variable +is not set, the package must behave as if it was set to
> +``binary-targets``.
> +
I think s/should/may/ in the first line -- can you explain why you think
it is worth enforcing this upon every build tool that might ever be
uploaded to Debian, given that there exists a
an-policy (4.1.4.2) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
> +debian-policy (4.1.5.0) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
>
> + * Policy: Document Rules-Requires-Root
> +Wording: Niels Thykier
> +Wording: Guillem Jover
> +Wording: Sean Whitton
> +Seconded: ...
> +Closes:
manual to
rst, a lot of this will go away. The reason there are so many is mainly
because we are using both docbook and rst for the time being.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
sion
> numbers containing strings of letters which the package management
> system cannot interpret (such as ``ALPHA`` or ``pre-``), or with silly
> orderings. [#]_
Seconded -- thank you for a nice patch.
I'm mildly distressed that we have two patches that I am hoping to get
into the
this.
Ah.
Reassigning, as the bug is not in the debian-policy package. Hopefully
I've quoted enough context for the dia maintainer (who is CCed).
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hello,
On Fri, May 25 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for
>epoch bump [and 2 more messages]"):
>> On Fri, May 25 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> > When we get to tidying this up, the epoch-ignoring new fi
NMU. You shouldn't NMU to fix metadata like the Vcs-*
fields. Leave it until one of the Uploaders comes along to this thread.
Thank you for your efforts, regardless.
--
Sean Whitton
maintainers to review your changes before
doing other work. I would suggest nuking the salsa group and repo in
the meantime.
Thanks again for your interest!
--
Sean Whitton
oaders and do stuff.
There was an upload by the current maintainer less than six months ago.
And he is not inactive in Debian. It would surely be a hijack to add to
uploaders without his explicit agreement.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
this sort of action is warranted. But maybe a
> footnote is in order to warn the Policy reader that sometimes this
> happens. How about this?
Please be sure to file this as a bug so we don't lose it! A worthwhile
change.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
don't think it should have
been).
If others are happy with the changes in this e-mail I'll prepare a patch
for seconding.
--
Sean Whitton
example, one might have redone the
> packaging from scratch, in which case there is no need to review the
> *changes* to policy.
Good point. I've added a qualifier.
Here is the patch for seconding:
> From 3bad0c91264c707ee163af93e45d3b53e5e4f880 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> F
ice would never be a good idea, but I can't think of a
reason why it would be bad.
--
Sean Whitton
an
> environment where the other formats are not very usable).
Fixed thanks to mitya57 backporting upstream's fix to sphinx in Debian.
--
Sean Whitton
ain, it can replace a lot
of the uses that there were for policy-1.html.
Any objections to dropping singlepage html output completely, until a
future date at which Sphinx upstream has improved it?
--
Sean Whitton
Hello,
On Sun, Jun 10 2018, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> Maybe this sentence should be removed from here, and added to the
>> last paragraph ("A very old ...") somewhere. Or maybe, even,
>> removed. Do we in fact file bugs automatically ? I'm not aware of
>>
;t have
policy-1.html until Sphinx has better support for generating it.
(Also, the other bugs should be closed when policy-1.html is dropped
because they are strictly invalid when the policy-1.html file does not
exist in the package. Instead, in the wishlist bug, we can note the
reasons for removal.)
--
Sean Whitton
``SONAME`` of the shared library.
> +Alternatively, if it would be confusing to directly append *soversion* to
> +libraryname (if, for example, libraryname itself ends in a number), you
> +should use libraryname-\ *soversion* instead. [#]_
>
> To determine the *soversion*, look at the ``SONAME`` of the library,
> stored in the ELF ``SONAME`` attribute. It is usually of the form
--
Sean Whitton
y the script when the script runs. It must
> -contain only variable settings and comments in SUSv3 ``sh`` format. It
> +contain only variable settings and comments in POSIX.1-2017 ``sh`` format. It
> may either be a ``conffile`` or a configuration file maintained by the
> package maintainer scripts. See :ref:`s-config-files` for
> more details.
--
Sean Whitton
akers are able to confirm it:
"The gain root command ... because it need not be used via a shell"
<-- it /can/ be used without a shell and /might/ be used without a shell,
/therefore/ it should not rely on shell features.
"The gain root command ... because it doesn't need to be used via a
shell" <-- it /can/ be used without a shell,
/therefore/ it should not rely on shell features.
i.e. the 'need not' carries the additional connotation that it might
/actually/ be used without a shell, which is the reason for not relying
on shell features.
>> +
>> +The `gain root command` must not run interactively, including
>> +prompting for any user input. It must be possible to prepend the
>> +`gain root command` to an existing command and its arguments, without
>> +needing to alter or quote the existing command and its arguments.
>> +Furthermore, the `gain root command` must preserve all environment
>> +variables without the caller having to explicitly request any
>> +preservation.
>> +
>> +The following are examples of valid gain root commands (in syntax of
> `gain root command`s ?
Unfortunately that change breaks Sphinx, causing it to print literal
backticks.
--
Sean Whitton
l architectures for reasons outside the
> +maintainer's control.
> +
> +Although the syntax of the field permits it, you should avoid
> +specifying that the package can be built on only a single
> +architecture. This provides flexibility to the administrators of
> +autobuilder infrastructure.
> +
> .. _s5.7:
--
Sean Whitton
is to my branch -- thanks!
On Fri, Jun 15 2018, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi Sean,
>
> On 15-06-18 14:43, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 14 2018, Paul Gevers wrote:
>>
>>>> + - A space separated list of keywords described below. These must
>
>
control: tag -1 -patch
[CCing those involved in the original discussion, and wanna-build team,
in case they object to my proposal below to just close this bug]
Hello,
On Fri, Jun 15 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Sean Whitton writes ("Bug#846970: Patch to document Build-Indep-Architecture
;t prohibit you declaring
> Architecture: amd64 for packages that you have failed to port to other
> architectures. This is correctly enforced as distro policy, not as
> debian/control syntax.
Fair enough.
I don't think we can proceed without input from the wanna-build team on
whether it would be a burden to them to have packages declare their
arch:all packgaes can be built on just a single architecture.
--
Sean Whitton
Hello all,
Whether or not you'll be physically present at DebCamp18, please
consider joining the sprint:
https://wiki.debian.org/Sprints/2018/DebianPolicy
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
to be no subdirectories in ``/usr/bin``
> +is relaxed to allow the ``mh`` mail-handling suite to create
> +``/usr/bin/mh/``, as was allowed in FHS version 2.3.
I think this needs to be worded more strongly so that it is clear that
the mh case is the /only/ exception.
[1] I did
e to a list where senior DDs come by
> to ask "can I please introduce a postinst to my package?" and that's
> just a waste of everyone's time.
There are no other similar changes in the pipeline.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
t is being referred to here, but the actual text
committed to Policy uses "should".
The 'required' in the title of this bug is perhaps ambiguous between
'should' and 'must'.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.4.2
Hello,
On Thu, Jun 28 2018, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 at 21:05:07 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> 1. FHS 3.0 allows distributions to create directory hierarchies
>> under
>> user's home directories
mote-bzr
>> % git clone bzr::http://bzr.linuxfoundation.org/lsb/devel/fhs-spec
>>
>> and then look at every commit after the first, which imports FHS 2.3.
>
> I'll check that the version I imported from a web server matches what's
> in that bzr repository.
The bzr repo had release tags so I think we're pretty safe.
> I don't intend to import the complete source
> including its bundled copy of docbook-xsl, only the bits that I already
> imported.
Agreed.
Thank you for your continued efforts!
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ctories in /var for some package dedicated
> user. I'm not sure how to distinguish cleanly between that case and
> the human users case. I guess having a home directory in /home is a
> reasonable proxy for being human.
Do you think we could resolve this by adding "... except whe
with that sentiment though, then that probably means the consensus
> disagrees with me and I'll have to live with it.
Just to be clear, as Policy delegate I am indeed making the judgement
that consensus is against you.
Thank you for contributing to the discussion!
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hello Jonathan,
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 enough.
--
Sean Whitton
signatu
ckaging-manuals/fhs/>`_ alongside
> @@ -1028,10 +1025,6 @@ Debian, so this section has been removed.
> This is necessary for architecture-dependent headers file to coexist
> in a ``multiarch`` setup.
>
> -.. [#]
> - This directory is used as mount point to mount virtual filesystems to
> - get access to kernel information.
> -
> .. [#]
> These directories are used to store translators and as a set of
> standard names for mount points, respectively.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
his facility. My suggestion to allow
README.source might be a good first step towards what you are
suggesting.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hello Laura,
On Wed, Jan 03 2018, Sean Whitton wrote:
> In #876075, we are considering dropping singlehtml output from the
> debian-policy package. There are numerous other bugs -- such as all
> footnote hyperlinks being broken -- and upstream sphinx seems to focus
> their efforts
Hello Bill,
On Thu, Jul 05 2018, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Why we would not want that ?
Sorry, I should have said -- because we've broken links too many times
over this transition, generating work for other teams. I want to stop
doing that!
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Descript
ed that bug.
See #859649 for how all this looks from Policy's point of view.
Thanks.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
e the problem and where documentation
> for humans about the process should go (presumably README.source).
Indeed, this is how Policy could address Andreas' concerns. Thanks for
writing it up, Russ.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
posted to the bug.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
upstreams could, or have already and
> the packaging hasn't caught up. More things to check...
In general it does indeed seem that this not yet ready for a bug against
debian-policy.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
:ref:`Standards-Version ` (recommended)
> +- :ref:`Standards-Version ` (mandatory)
>
> - :ref:`Homepage `
>
> @@ -238,7 +238,7 @@ is described above, in :ref:`s-controlsyntax`.
>
> - :ref:`Dgit `
>
> -- :ref:`Standards-Version ` (recommended)
> +- :ref:`Standard
y be
> +installed as ``/usr/share/doc/package/NEWS.gz`` or
> +``/usr/share/doc/package/changelog.gz`` (depending on whether the file
> +is release notes or a changelog); if there is a separate upstream
> +maintainer, but no upstream release notes or changelog, then the
> +Debian changelog should still be called ``changelog.Debian.gz``.
>
> For details about the format and contents of the Debian changelog file,
> please see :ref:`s-dpkgchangelog`.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hello,
A reminder that the rolling Debian Policy sprint is now in progress at
DebConf.[1]
Please come and talk to me if you'd like to get involved, or on IRC if
you're remote.
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/Sprints/2018/DebianPolicy
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Jakub Wilk does point
out that maintainer scripts may assume /usr is mounted, so I'm not sure
about this.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
rmally contained in /etc/protocols and /etc/services by
means of the C standard library.
Could you say more about why this is needed, and provide wording for a
third bullet point in the list in my patch, which describes the
functionality of /etc/protocols and /etc/services, please?
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
, except to services on the build host that have been
> +started by the build, via the loopback interface.
>
> The targets are as follows:
>
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
27;s configure script that cause the compiler to produce less
> +output.
> +
> Unknown flags must be ignored by ``debian/rules``.
>
> The following makefile snippet is an example of how one may implement
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
low what you mean by awkward, I don't think I know
what you are trying to achieve with this new text, so I'll wait for a
reply to my first question.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
the loopback interface, to services on the
> +build host that have been started by the build.
>
> The targets are as follows:
>
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ons to the
> +package's configure script that cause the compiler to produce less
> +output.
> +
> Unknown flags must be ignored by ``debian/rules``.
>
> The following makefile snippet is an example of how one may implement
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
thout the
> source code.
>
> For example pari-gp include both changelog.gz and NEW.gz and both are
> potentially useful to users without a copy of the source.
I think we can rely on maintainer discretion to ignore Policy in cases
like this. Recommendations are weaker than "should&
on for a
lot of our source packages, but these are much more subtle and not
a matter of the system on which the source package is unpacked, so
I suggest leaving those aside for this bug.
[2] https://bugs.debian.org/850156#55
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
``
This is used to declare that one package may be more useful with one
or more others. Using this field tells the packaging system and the
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hello,
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 the
recommends.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
a script to
insert the links.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
agree it would be useful feature.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
sk the T.C. to decide what maintscripts should do in these cases.
The general question about which I am seeking advice: does the
T.C. think that Debian can be consistent on service (re)starts in
maintscripts, or is the best we can do to leave it up to package
maintainer discretion?
Thanks.
--
Se
is seems to discount
> plausibly valid bugs out of hand without defining acceptable failure modes.
Thank you both for your replies. I agree. My patch is not an
improvement. I would like to blame DebCamp jetlag for how halfbaked my
attempt was :)
I will think harder about what we can do about this bug.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
right to view this as a forced rename, because of the
deprecation. At least with this patch, there is no time limit. We're
just stating that the newer practice is better.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
d so not useful in the binary package, but only in
+the source package.
If either of these files are distributed in HTML, they should be made
available at ``/usr/share/doc/package/NEWS.html.gz`` and
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
x27;m applying my patch to close this bug, and if you think you know
what further loosening of the restriction should happen (e.g. for access
to apt repositories), you should file a new bug against debian-policy
with a write-up of the proposal or topic for discussion.
--
Sean Whitton
signatur
it already used in d/control files in the archive before documenting
that in Policy.
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamMetadata
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
up with what format requirements we want to impose on
> the changelogs, if any.
This is far out of scope for this bug.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ieder wrote:
> 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
&g
is going to be different for each proposed
new field.
It's probably fine for discussions to start here and then we can
reassign the bugs when we figure out who the consumers are.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
level in
between: functionality you can assume is there but nevertheless you
should build-depend on a package providing that functionality.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
in
init-system-helpers. So this bug should be reassigned to
init-system-helpers.
Thanks Ian for unsticking this bug.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
is not ready to go into Policy, then there is no Policy work to be done,
and we should close the bug.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ns about the formatting of
debian/copyright. We simply have to resolve the former question first.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
o find and people won't know to look there. I think that concern could
> be addressed by also referencing this in /etc/motd and in the Debian
> Release Notes.
I would be happy with this as an alternative to including the whole
copyright format in base-files.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
e?
I don't think this would be a good use of anyone's time until we make
progress on #904729.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
time to answer these questions, or e-mailed
replies. Thank you!
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
201 - 300 of 727 matches
Mail list logo
