Bug#835876: debian-policy: please suggest dbus-run-session to run tests

Source: debian-policy Version: 3.9.8.0 Severity: minor User: d...@packages.debian.org Usertags: dbus-launch dbus-launch-for-tests As described in I'm trying to reduce how much dbus-launch is used in Debian. The autopkgtest document in

Re: Bug#845715: debian-policy: Please document that packages are not allowed to write outside their source directories

On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 at 12:54:12 +, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Quoting Adam D. Barratt (2016-11-26 09:40:17) > > On Sat, 2016-11-26 at 03:34 +, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > > + None of the required targets must attempt to write outside of > > > the > > > > the current wording means "

Bug#175064: DocBook XML conversion is read with this script

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 at 11:32:09 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bill Allombert writes: > > > I am concerned that DocBook is much too complex to be used for Debian > > policy. We need to people to write patches without trouble and we do > > not have many editors available for fixing the XML. Debiand

Bug#181123: [PATCH 0/2] Mention try-reload and status actions

On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 at 04:09:31 +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > Andreas Henriksson (2): > Document optional try-restart init script action > Document status init script action Both patches seconded. There is of course plenty more to be done in this chapter, but let's not let the perfect be

Re: Bug#698012: debian-policy: Please update 10.6 "Device files" for udev and the like

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 at 16:12:53 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > I propose the following section to completely replace this section. This > preserves what I think are the still-useful requirements while making it > clear that nearly all packages should keep their hands off of /dev > entirely. Seconde

Re: Bug#835490: debian-policy: remove references to upstart

On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 at 12:10:08 +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > Upstart is no longer part of Debian[1] nor actively maintained > upstream. Policy should drop references to it as an alternative init > system. Seconded.

Bug#865713: Declaring a charset of UTF-8 for policy files

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 at 15:04:41 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Stéphane Blondon writes: > > pabs added such configuration few days ago for Apache configuration: > > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/mirror/dsa-puppet.git/commit/?id=5bcf8431d6b375d211a29f9d2c338e4400332e1a > > Paul, does this resolve

Bug#787816: Replace FHS 2.3 by FHS 3.0 in the Policy.

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 at 22:37:04 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > I assume if we allow /usr/libexec, we also need to support > /usr/libexec/x86_64-linux-gnu/ etc. ? I'm not sure I see why we would? Platforms with the "multilib" lib/lib64 duality (Red Hat derivatives, etc.) only have one /usr/libexec,

Re: Bug#542288: debian-policy: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 at 14:08:05 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > +upstream_version components in > +native packages ending in +nmu followed > +by a number indicate an NMU of a native package. I thought 1.2.3-4+nmu1 was also allowed as an alternative to 1

Bug#640263: debian-policy: Clarify policy section 9.9 - Environment variables

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 at 14:58:06 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Everyone seemed generally happy with this text, but it never clearly got > enough seconds to apply. Here's an updated patch so that we can take > another run at getting enough seconds and getting it merged. I second the patch quoted bel

Bug#587279: Clarify restrictions on main to non-free dependencies

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 at 14:43:36 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Here is an updated version of the patch from earlier in this (now very > long) thread for discussion. I still think this is consistent with > previous practice and reasonable documentation of what we're currently > doing. > > diff --git

Re: Bug#542288: debian-policy: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads

On Sun, 02 Jul 2017 at 01:28:59 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > A somewhat more complicated example is ikiwiki; when Joey was still > maintaining it for Debian (before he resigned from the project), it was > also a native package. It still is. I am the Debian maintainer and an upstream co-maintain

Bug#757760: debian-policy: please document build profiles

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 at 09:06:23 +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote: > It is not intended to completely forbid the "stage1" profile name. It is clear > that it has its use for the initial cross-compiler bootstrap involving glibc, > gcc and linux. I suspect stage1 might also still be useful for (possibly

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

On Sat, 02 Sep 2017 at 08:44:14 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Sun, Aug 20 2017, Helmut Grohne wrote: > > A common theme with such cases is to resort to `Multi-Arch: allowed` > > (e.g. make), but that has the downside of requiring most consumers to > > attach the :any annotation and that it can ne

Bug#874663: Document +dfsg as extenson when repacking upstream sources

On Fri, 08 Sep 2017 at 16:10:44 +0200, Guido Günther wrote: > when upstream tarballs need to be repacked because they contain non-dfsg > free data appending '+dfsg' to the upstream version seems common > practice. However some packages append '.dfsg', others use > +dfsg and there are more formats a

Bug#874663: Document +dfsg as extenson when repacking upstream sources

On Fri, 08 Sep 2017 at 10:38:54 -1000, David Prévot wrote: > Le 08/09/2017 à 07:44, Simon McVittie a écrit : > > This made me think that we should maybe only be doing this when > > a *pre-existing* upstream version needs to be repacked. > > […] when upstream releases > >

Re: Bug#876055: Environment variable handling for reproducible builds

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 at 18:00:51 -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > There is a huge difference between variables that *might* affect the > build as an unintended input that gets stored in a resulting packages in > some manner, and variables that are designed to change the behavior of > parts of the b

Bug#876055: Environment variable handling for reproducible builds

(Re-sending this to the bug rather than to debian-policy, sorry for the duplicate on -policy) On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 at 18:00:51 -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > There is a huge difference between variables that *might* affect the > build as an unintended input that gets stored in a resulting packag

Bug#679751: Patch to close out this bug

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 at 19:06:31 +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: >XDG_RUNTIME_DIR=/nonexistant Unset, please, if you go this route. Unlike HOME, general-purpose software (that doesn't specifically depend on systemd-logind or the older pam_xdg) is expected to cope with XDG_RUNTIME_DIR not being s

Bug#878905: debian-policy: Document installability recommendations for dependency alternatives

On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 at 18:12:29 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > (1) dconf-service depends default-dbus-session-bus | dbus-session-bus > (2) default-dbus-session-bus is provided by an Architecture: all package, but > depends on systemd > > APT refuses to install that. This specific instanc

Bug#878967: debian-policy: clarify purpose of debian/changelog

On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 at 23:06:29 -0700, Ross Vandegrift wrote: > During a > recent thread on mentors [1], I learned that the purpose is to provide a human > readable list of changes between released versions of Debian. Between released versions of the package in Debian, rather than versions of Debi

Bug#878905: debian-policy: Document installability recommendations for dependency alternatives

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 11:54:49 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:02:21AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > This is made especially difficult because since policy 4.0.1.0 we are not > > able > > to rely on 'priority: optional' packages being installable any more. > >

Bug#879049: debian-policy: 4.9.1: Allow nodoc to be used to not create empty -doc packages

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 14:16:48 -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > Source: debian-policy > Version: 4.1.1.1 > > I recently introduced support for nodoc for libgdamm5.0 in its > packaging branch (not uploaded to unstable yet) [1]. Since there is > only one arch-indep package, the -doc package, there are

Bug#879049: debian-policy: 4.9.1: Allow nodoc to be used to not create empty -doc packages

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 20:30:20 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 02:16:48PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > > I don't think there is any benefit to anyone from empty -doc packages. > > What about packages that depend on -doc packages ? > They might become uninstallable. I can t

Bug#879049: debian-policy: 4.9.1: Allow nodoc to be used to not create empty -doc packages

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 14:58:24 -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Simon McVittie wrote: > > I don't think this is a policy violation: you're mixing up the nodoc > > build profile with the nodoc build option. > > Specifically, this is wh

Re: Bug#881166: log files, postrotate example: start-stop-daemon or invoke-rc.d?

On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 at 13:50:31 +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: > Imagine the following scenario: > > - a package distributes an init script that runs the process with a PID file > > - later on, the package maintainer starts distributing a systemd unit > file as well, running the process in foregroun

Bug#459427: changelog vs. NEWS handling

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 at 23:01:08 -0500, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > As others have said, running 'git log' is far more useful than a > complete changelog and in my experience, most projects these days > outside of GNU don't bother shipping changelogs. Many of those projects that do ship a ChangeLog gener

Bug#636383: debian-policy: 10.2 and others: private libraries may also be multi-arch-ified

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 at 16:04:17 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Shared object files (often .so files) that are not > public libraries, that is, they are not meant to be linked > to by third party executables (binaries of other packages), > - should be installed in subdi

Bug#614807: debian-policy: Please document autobuilder-imposed build-dependency alternative restrictions

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 at 14:21:13 +0100, Sean Finney wrote: > The Debian autobuilders only make use of the first alternative > in a set of alternatives, in order to guarantee consistent, > reproducible builds. This does not include architecture > restrictions, because architecture reduction takes pl

Bug#786470: debian-policy: [copyright-format] Add an optional “License-Grant” field

I think the License-Grant field is a useful addition to the format, resolving some issues around whether License is meant to be the license, the license grant or both, and I would like to be able to start using it. I assume a normative change to the available fields, and to the meaning of License,

Re: Automatic downloading of non-free software by stuff in main

On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 at 09:31:57 -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > Ian Jackson wrote: > > The obvious example is web browsers with extension repositories > > containing both free and non-free software. Another example that seems obvious in the context of Debian is libapt frontends. Like a web browser

Re: Automatic downloading of non-free software by stuff in main

On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 at 14:50:00 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > I appreciate that the configuration I am describing is quite fierce. > Many people would hate it. I wouldn't use it myself. It shouldn't be > the default. Then why are you suggesting that the project should consider using release-critic

Bug#883950: debian-policy: allow specifying common licenses with only the identifier

On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 at 19:57:26 +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > First of all, I'd like policy to stop being unclear on this matter, or > state whether the correct form is [a brief license reference] or > [the full license grant]. This is not really Policy's decision: it's the ftp team (cc'd) who de

Bug#786470: debian-policy: [copyright-format] Add an optional “License-Grant” field

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 at 23:54:01 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 09:27:30AM +0000, Simon McVittie wrote: > > I think the License-Grant field is a useful addition to the format > > I strongly disagree with this. I think this adds more syntax without ad

Bug#884964: using "su - " in postinst causing some installs to fail

On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 at 19:42:05 +, Sean Whitton wrote: > control: retitle -1 Discourage 'su -' in maintscripts, in favour of plain 'su' Plain 'su' is also problematic, because it inherits the entire environment, including variables like HOME, XDG_RUNTIME_DIR, XDG_*_HOME, DBUS_SESSION_BUS_ADDRE

Bug#884964: using "su - " in postinst causing some installs to fail

On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 at 22:04:44 -0600, LinuxChix SysAdmin wrote: > Changing the shell to /bin/bash for tuptime for example, eliminates the > error with using 'su -'. When writing profile.d snippets, you can't assume that every user has bash as their login shell. profile.d snippets need to be writt

Re: Bug#884224: ebian-policy: please add CC-BY-3.0 to common licenses

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 at 13:54:41 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > license-count numbers: > > CC-BY 1.0 2 > CC-BY 2.0 3 > CC-BY 2.511 > CC-BY 3.0 165 > CC-BY 4.028 > CC-BY-SA 1.0 3 > CC-BY-SA 2.0 44 >

Bug#884225: debian-policy: please add CC-BY-4.0 to common licenses

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 at 13:55:37 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > CC-BY-SA 3.0285 > CC-BY-SA 4.0 61 > > 4.0 is a pretty niche license right now. Maybe that's expected to grow at > the cost of 3.0, though I would hope that it is expected to grow, given that CC-BY-SA 3.0 has

Bug#884228: debian-policy: please add OFL-1.1 to common licenses

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 at 22:24:23 +0100, Markus Koschany wrote: > Am 29.12.2017 um 00:06 schrieb Jonathan Nieder: > > Using 'Files: *' when different files are under different licenses > > sacrifices precision, but it doesn't sacrifice accuracy. You can say > > > > Files: * > > License: GPL-2 and

Bug#515856: debhelper: please implement dh get-orig-source

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 at 21:06:05 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > It would be more useful to kept it but to add a note toward migrating to > uscan if possible. If this is reinstated, please can we discard the requirement that get-orig-source be invokable with an arbitrary working directory? Many pack

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Javascript team policy and rejection of node-three binary package

On Sat, 03 Mar 2018 at 19:53:42 +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > What do you think about the case of handlebars? In that case I think a > separate binary is required because the command line tool must declare a > dependency on nodejs, whereas the javascript library (libjs-*), does not > require it.

Re: Javascript team policy and rejection of node-three binary package [and 1 more messages]

On Fri, 09 Mar 2018 at 17:50:30 +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > How about the change given below? (is the intent clear at least even if > disagreement on content remains) > > 5. should add 'Provides: node-foo' in debian/control and install > package.json in /usr/lib/nodejs/foo, if the script is usa

Re: Javascript team policy and rejection of node-three binary package [and 1 more messages]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 at 14:48:40 +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > On വെള്ളി 09 മാർച്ച് 2018 08:39 വൈകു, Simon McVittie wrote: > > And for executables, perhaps something like this: ... > > * should not be named node-* without a suffix like -bin or -tools (?) > > I don't thi

Bug#747320: Mandate "type" in /bin/sh

Control: retitle -1 Mandate "type" and/or "command -v" in /bin/sh On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 at 21:52:34 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Ian Jackson , 2014-05-07, 14:32: > > It seems to me that given that dash and bash both provide `type', and > > the underlying functionality necessarily exists in the shell

Bug#881431: proposed wording

On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 at 08:12:15 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Seeking seconds: > > > §3.2.2 Uniqueness of version numbers This has lost the part of Adam's wording where he explicitly said that this applies to all three of these namespaces: * (source package name, source version without epoch) * (

Bug#881431: proposed wording

On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 at 11:47:09 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > > §3.2.2 Uniqueness of version numbers > > > > The part of the version number after the epoch must not be reused for > > a version of the package with different contents once the package has > > been accepted into the archive, even if the

Bug#850156: Please firmly deprecate vendor-specific series files

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 at 14:36:14 +0200, Mike Gabriel wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 13:41:53 + Ian Jackson > wrote: > > But [vendor.series] is quite wrong, because it means that the same > > source package has different "contents" on different computers. > > The source package is always the same.

Bug#850156: Please firmly deprecate vendor-specific series files

On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 at 08:00:28 +, Mike Gabriel wrote: > One example, where the vendor.series file is really helpful is: > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-mate/mate-terminal.git/tree/debian/patches/2001_fix-find-next-previous.patch That one-line change could easily be guarded by #ifdef UBU

Bug#850156: Please firmly deprecate vendor-specific series files [and 1 more messages]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 at 21:11:11 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > The examples given are for series.ubuntu, which is certainly the case I've > seen in the wild. Ubuntu, as a project, did not ask for this. As an Ubuntu > developer, it has never benefitted me. I have only ever seen it used by > Debia

Bug#813471: network access to the loopback device should be allowed

On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 at 14:09:53 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 01:00:14PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > Jérémy Lal dijo [Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 07:46:43PM +0200]: > > > It might be a good idea to make policy more explicit about downloads > > > during > > > build. > > > > I c

Bug#813471: network access to the loopback device should be allowed

On Thu, 10 May 2018 at 17:51:19 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Simon McVittie writes ("Bug#813471: network access to the loopback device > should be allowed"): > > Is it legitimate for a package > > to resolve the reserved name "localhost" during build, and ass

Bug#864615: please update version of posix standard for scripts (section 10.4)

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 15:28:04 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14 2017, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > The 2016 edition is Technical Corrigendum 2. I'm not sure that it's > > conventional to use versioning such as 4.2 in such cases, however. I'd > > expect it to be referred to as SUSv4, SUSv4

Bug#567033: Decide if we should continue recommending /usr/games

Control: unmerge 567033 On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 at 07:07:49 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > The latest version of the FHS does not have /usr/games, so merging this > with the bug about updating our FHS version. Removing the games directories was considered in

Bug#787816: Replace FHS 2.3 by FHS 3.0 in the Policy.

a tarball, for better transparency. > By the way, I wonder if the debian-policy package is the best place for > shipping a copy of the FHS. Probably not, but let's not delay its adoption by another 3 years while we paint that particular bike shed :-) smcv >From 8867b0b88d311739fd

Bug#787816: Replace FHS 2.3 by FHS 3.0 in the Policy.

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 14:37:04 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > There are already 28 /usr/lib/TUPLE/*/bin directories in unstable. > There are probably other directories with binaries not named bin. > > They are candidates for being moved to /usr/libexec, but they should > probably go to /usr/libex

Bug#864615: please update version of posix standard for scripts (section 10.4)

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 13:06:43 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14 2018, Simon McVittie wrote: > > I'd suggest replacing SUSv3 with POSIX.1-2017 or SUSv4 2018 edition > > instead, > > Please find a revised patch below; hopefully Gunnar will renew his > seco

Bug#880920: Document Rules-Requires-Root field

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 13:43:36 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14 2018, Paul Gevers wrote: > >> +This command > >> +allows the ``debian/rules`` target to run particular subcommands under > > > >^^ lintian will tell you this should be "enables" > > As a native speaker I find 'allo

Bug#880920: Document Rules-Requires-Root field

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 18:02:39 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote: > Here is the complete new diff for seconding Seconded (as below). smcv > > diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog > > index 2dea331..b89816e 100644 > > --- a/debian/changelog > > +++ b/debian/changelog > > @@ -1,5 +1,11 @@

Bug#846970: Patch to document Build-Indep-Architecture field

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 18:16:47 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > +Specification of architectures on which the architecture-independent > > > +binary packages are known to be buildable and/or not buildable. If > > > +this field is not specified, it defaults to ``any``, matching all > > > +Debian mac

Bug#787816: Replace FHS 2.3 by FHS 3.0 in the Policy.

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 conforming to the XDG Base Directories or > the GLib conventions on user directory contents. > > We don't permit packages to ins

Bug#787816: Replace FHS 2.3 by FHS 3.0 in the Policy.

How about the attached patch? Complete patch series (including non-normative) updated here: https://salsa.debian.org/smcv/policy/merge_requests/1/diffs On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 at 14:04:28 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28 2018, Simon McVittie wrote: > > On 64-bit architectu

Bug#795402: base-files: Please add Creative Commons license texts

On Mon, 09 Jul 2018 at 15:16:27 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > CC-BY-SA3.0 303 Note that some of those will be CC-BY-SA-3.0-US, some will be CC-BY-SA-3.0 Unported, and some might be a different (legally distinct) localization (there are many). Some uses of Creative Commons l

Bug#804018: options to avoid service startup on package installation

On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 at 05:11:15 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > ISTM that in days gone by this would have been (should have been) a > wishlist item for invoke-rc.d. The interface was defined in > invoke-rc.d(8) and README.policy-rc.d.gz. ... > Nowadays, there is systemd too. I have no idea whether >

Bug#459427: Patch seeking seconds on changelog vs. NEWS handling

On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 at 20:57:41 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified >it, and giving a relevant date. I don't think this is normally interpreted as requiring that *all* modifications be listed, only that the existence of mod

Bug#883950: Bug#904729: Policy 12.5: Must the license grant be included in debian/copyright?

On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 at 17:18:42 +0800, Sean Whitton wrote: > If we want to implement anything like what's being discussed > in #883950, we need section 12.5 to state explicitly that the license > grant need not be included. suggests tha

Bug#883950: Next steps on "[GPL-3+]" proposal

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 at 00:50:34 +1000, Stuart Prescott wrote: > Let us consider this proposed syntax in terms of what someone unfamiliar > with the format is going to see Along these lines, it might be helpful for people with an interest in pushing this forward to convert some d/copyright files t

Bug#228692: User/group creation/removal in package maintainer scripts

On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 at 17:53:50 +0200, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > previously created users should *not* (ever) be removed There has been a suggestion in the past that these users should be locked on package removal and unlocked on reinstallation, as implemented in (for example) openarena-server.

Bug#904729: Policy 12.5: Must the license grant be included in debian/copyright?

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) > > This wording confuses me. All lic

Bug#883950: Next steps on "[GPL-3+]" proposal

On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 at 13:52:57 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > The obvious objection to that would be the fact that the SPDX > identifiers are not set in stone; a future update of the SPDX > identifiers might then conflict with one of the identifiers that we add. > Either we'd need [...], or a rul

Bug#906949: Clarify documentation location in a Python2-less distribution

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 at 01:20:44 +1000, Stuart Prescott wrote: > d) revert to /usr/share/doc/python-foo-doc: do we ignore policy's > recommendation, overriding (or changing) dh_installdocs? While > /usr/share/doc/main-package is only a recommendation in policy, 700 > python-foo-doc packages delib

Bug#906949: Clarify documentation location in a Python2-less distribution

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 at 15:43:06 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > There are two reasons for the standardised paths in /usr/share/doc: > 1. So that the user can find the right documentation. > 2. So that you avoid clashes with other packagkes. > > Not moving the docs about assists 1. As does providing

Re: Bug#905817: UID range of DyanmicUser overlaps with existing definitions in debian-policy

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 at 08:47:19 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Fri 10 Aug 2018 at 08:23AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > > There is also: > > 65536-4294967293: > > Dynamically allocated user accounts. By default adduser will not > > allocate UIDs and GIDs in this range, to ease compatibility with

Bug#904248: Beginnings of a patch to add netbase to build-essential

On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 13:45:06 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On the note of /etc/hosts, I'm fixing the original bug rised by Simon > McVittie (that was triggered by tests.reproducible-builds.org not > resolving localhost) within pbuilder (#905307) btw. I think this is a better

Bug#911165: debian-policy: drop requirement to ship sysvinit init script with same name

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 20:31:54 +0200, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > I'm still leaning towards thinking just dropping this section is > better than doing a direct translation of it to the current systemd > reality which might just end up being confusing and help noone. One part of this section that

Bug#824495: debian-policy: Source packages "can" declare relationships

On Sat, 10 Nov 2018 at 19:29:03 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Thu 08 Nov 2018 at 02:51PM GMT, Ian Jackson wrote: > >(ii) output packages with additional features or functionality. > >Such additional features MAY imply additional functional runtime > >dependencies, which then SHOULD be

Bug#833401: debian-policy: virtual packages: dbus-session-bus, default-dbus-session-bus

On Sat, 03 Nov 2018 at 14:07:18 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Thu 04 Aug 2016 at 01:43PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > >> Other options > > I note that no such binary package exists right now. Does this issue > remain unresolved? I also note recent discussion on d-devel.

Bug#833401: debian-policy: virtual packages: dbus-session-bus, default-dbus-session-bus

On Fri, 07 Dec 2018 at 19:26:50 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > diff --git a/virtual-package-names-list.yaml b/virtual-package-names-list.yaml > + - name: dbus-session-bus > + description: provides the D-Bus well-known session bus for most or all > user login sessions > + - name: default-dbus-sessi

Bug#917431: debian-policy: virtual packages: logind, default-logind

On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 at 02:52:09 +0900, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > Adam Borowski writes: > > Thus, the wording would be (as proposed by fsateler): > > > > logind: an org.freedesktop.login1 D-Bus API implementation > > > > default-logind: should be provided by the distribution's default logind > > pro

Bug#917431: debian-policy: virtual packages: logind, default-logind

On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 at 15:39:58 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 02:07:25PM +, Sean Whitton wrote: > > Ideally, this would be reviewed and seconded by people working on init > > stuff, so I'm not going to second it myself unless we don't get interest. > > I asked around, a

Bug#924401: base-files fails postinst when base-passwd is unpacked

It would probably be good for the overall robustness of the system if we try to solve this from multiple angles. On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 16:17:10 +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote: > A. /etc/passwd is part of base-passwd's interface and base-files is >right in relying on it working at all times. Then

Bug#924401: base-files fails postinst when base-passwd is unpacked

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 10:21:30 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > The reason I'm often asked to add hacks to base-files.postinst is only > that base-files is usually configured in the second place I think it's also fair to say that base-files is exactly a collection of the miscellaneous files and boot

Bug#761219: debian-policy: document versioned Provides

On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 at 21:54:40 +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > This is a fair comment. The wording was potentially misleading. How about > the attached instead? This mostly looks good, just one thing that I would add: > -If a relationship field has a version number attached, only real > -pack

Re: Bug#919507: Reboot required patch for Debian policy

On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 at 20:27:04 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > "Karl O. Pinc" writes: > > diff --git a/policy/ch-opersys.rst b/policy/ch-opersys.rst > > index 59c92ec..8276bfe 100644 > > --- a/policy/ch-opersys.rst > > +++ b/policy/ch-opersys.rst > > @@ -1040,3 +1040,33 @@ Debian, so this section ha

Bug#172436: Updated BROWSER proposal

On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 21:08:15 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > I think it's clear that we're not making forward progress here, and the > lack of a clear specification for the BROWSER environment variable doesn't > seem to be causing a lot of noticable ongoing pain. I'm therefore going > to close thi

Bug#932704: debian-policy: Don't force sysvinit compatibility if e.g. alternate init required

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 13:39:31 +0200, Ansgar wrote: > What sort of dependencies are we talking about? Package-level > dependencies (e.g. Depends: systemd-sysv directly or indirectly)? Probably yes. systemd-cron and dbus-user-session are examples of packages that rely on the systemd service manage

Bug#942051: debian-policy: [4.9] requirement to write only to /tmp, /var/tmp, ${TMPDIR} is too strict

On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 at 18:08:09 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 05:51:53PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > > There are > > other paths that should be fine to be written to during the build > > process, for example /dev/shm > > Do you have example of packages that does that

Bug#942051: debian-policy: [4.9] requirement to write only to /tmp, /var/tmp, ${TMPDIR} is too strict

On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 at 17:51:53 +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > +--- > | 4.9 > |Required targets must not write outside of the unpacked source > |package tree, except for TMPDIR, /tmp and /var/tmp. > +--- If you are interested in this sort of thing, is per

Bug#941198: initscripts: packages should ship systemd units

On Fri, 01 Nov 2019 at 12:21:43 +0100, Ansgar wrote: > Dmitry Bogatov writes: > > Does it mean that lack of systemd unit file is RC-critical bug? Or I > > will be able to waive it with "you are welcome to contribute a patch" > > response? I think in general the answer is that it should be a non-RC

Bug#945269: debian-policy: packages should use tmpfiles.d(5) to create directories below /var

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 at 09:03:29 +0100, Ansgar wrote: > I would like to recommend packages to use tmpfiles.d(5) to manage > creating directories in locations such as /var or /etc instead of > maintainer scripts. Using tmpfiles.d(5) seems like a good thing to encourage, but using them *instead of* m

Bug#945269: debian-policy: packages should use tmpfiles.d(5) to create directories below /var

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 at 14:05:50 +0100, Ansgar wrote: > I'm fairly sure that systemd-tmpfiles doesn't require systemd as pid-1 It doesn't, but its dh_installsystemd integration currently does, so maintainer scripts relying on it would currently be buggy. I think it would be premature to recommend s

Bug#945269: debian-policy: packages should use tmpfiles.d(5) to create directories below /var

On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 10:58:23 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Guillem Jover writes: > > I don't mind much how this could end up being hooked into various init > > systems and chroot/container managers. I can see how it could be done by > > the respective imeplementations themselves or provided by d

Re: Proposal for next steps for systemd-related policy

On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 at 10:47:44 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >We probably also want to recommend Type=notify where possible and >Type=exec where not, over Type=forking, when the daemon supports that. I'm not sure what you mean by "where possible" - it'll usually be possible to implement Type

Re: Proposal for next steps for systemd-related policy

On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 at 10:47:44 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > 3. Start a discussion on debian-devel to see if we can come up with some >idea for how to declare dependencies on availability of system >services. Do you mean "systemd features", or do you mean system services more generally? I

Re: Guidance on solving the username namespacing problem

On Sat, 04 Jan 2020 at 13:52:51 +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: > now that we are talking again about standardizing user creation using > sysusers, I wonder if you could give me any guidance on how to attack > the Debian system user namespacing problem. It's a good reminder, but I think the naming conv

Re: Guidance on solving the username namespacing problem

On Sun, 05 Jan 2020 at 17:16:58 +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: > On 1/4/2020 5:08 PM, Simon McVittie wrote: > > It's also worth noting that the 61184-65519 uid range used for DynamicUser > > by default collides with the rarely-used 6-64999 uid range for system > >

Bug#948275: is Debian POSIX compliant?

On Mon, 06 Jan 2020 at 12:12:23 +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote: > I haven't found it mentioned in the policy manual, so I wonder if > Debian is supposed to be POSIX compliant (unless noted otherwise)? I suspect what we aim for is "approximately POSIX". Neither the Linux kernel nor the various user-spa

Bug#949690: debian-policy: "service unit should have the same name as the package" seems too strong

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.5.0.0 Severity: minor X-Debbugs-Cc: syst...@packages.debian.org If a package has a single system service with a systemd service unit, and the system service's name does not match the package's name, current Policy implies that this is probably a (non-RC) bug. I t

Bug#940144: developers-reference: document self-service givebacks in wanna-build section

On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 10:16:25 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > https://debblog.philkern.de/2019/08/alpha-self-service-buildd-givebacks.html ... >As an alpha trial I implemented self-service givebacks as a web >script. As SSO for Debian developers is now a thing, it is trivial >to add authent

Bug#980069: Better documentation of x-terminal-emulator

On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 22:49:27 +, Bastien Roucariès wrote: > gnome-terminal -e sleep 60 The upstream-provided gnome-terminal executable does not claim to be an implementation of the x-terminal-emulator alternative. It has its own command-line interface, which uses GNU-style long-option parsin

Bug#984511: debian-policy: please clarify how archive areas can be combined in source packages

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.5.1.0 Severity: normal X-Debbugs-Cc: ftpmas...@debian.org Package maintainers (including me, most of the time) tend to assume that each source package has to exist in exactly one archive area, and all of its binary packages have to go into that same archive area.

  1   2   3   >