Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.6.0.1
Severity: important
Building packages should not require to be root.
I don't know what's going on, but see
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1002497#31
-- System Information:
Debian Release: bookworm/sid
APT prefers unstable-debug
AP
Control: reopen -1
On 2021-12-25 14:55:37 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat 25 Dec 2021 at 10:38PM +01, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Version: 4.6.0.1
> > Severity: important
> >
> > Building packages should no
Hello Bill,
On 2021-12-25 22:58:25 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 25, 2021 at 10:38:47PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > Building packages should not require to be root.
>
> Hello Vincent!
>
> Currently, packages are allowed to require root to build.
> See
Hi Sean,
On 2021-12-25 15:55:32 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Okay, I've attempted to retitle this bug in accordance with your
> suggestion. The relevant change would not be in ch. 4, but under ch. 5.
> What you suggest is to add to the meaning of "Rules-Requires-Root: no"
> that packages which de
On 2021-12-25 14:48:33 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre writes:
>
> > Here, the build via "debuild" is failing even when fakeroot is available
> > (installed on the machine). Note that Rules-Requires-Root has been set
> > to "no". IMHO, th
On 2021-12-27 17:54:24 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> The sort of case I have in mind is an 'RRR: no'%e package that does not
> FTBFS when built as root, but does do so as non-root. I agree that
> that's an FTBFS bug, but is it release-critical? For a relatively new
> feature like RRR, I'm not sure
Package: developers-reference
Version: 3.4.9
Severity: normal
share/doc/developers-reference/developers-reference.txt.gz says:
6.7.7. Make transition packages deborphan compliant
[...]
For example, with --guess-dummy, deborphan tries to search all
transitional packages which were needed
On 2013-03-24 19:20:17 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> like for the other pages of the Debian website, the Developers Reference is
> served by content negociation and for that reason it is not possible to
> transiently change the default language without the use of a browser plugin
> (or
By correc
On 2010-03-04 17:12:15 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 04:32:45PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Because, of course, the user is too stupid to click the “Help” menu
> > inside the application.
>
> Because the users have not yet decided if they want to start the applicati
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.2
Severity: important
[Severity set as important, because the lack of a requirement can
have serious implications, including security ones.]
Configuration is sometimes represented in another way than contents
of a configuration file, e.g. a set of symbolic li
On 2007-02-27 16:37:21 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Policy requires that packages preserve local changes to
> *configuration files*. What you're asking for is that packages be
> required unconditionally to preserve *application behavior*.
No, this is not what I'm asking for. I really mean config
Package: developers-reference
Version: 13.5
Severity: normal
Now that the deborphan package has been removed from unstable,
the section "Make transition packages deborphan compliant" in
"Best Packaging Practices" is out of date and should be updated.
See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.
On 2025-02-26 15:55:06 +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Of course this does not consider conflicts, so in practice we have
> some false positives. Here is an example output.
[...]
As the policy is written, a Conflicts does not seem to be a resolution
for programs with the same filenames:
10.1
Tw
13 matches
Mail list logo
