: doxygen
BuILd-CoNfLIctS: automake1.4
StANdaRdS-VErsIoN: 4.6.1
VcS-brOwSeR: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/xz-utils
VcS-giT: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/xz-utils
HoMEpaGe: https://tukaani.org/xz/
RuLEs-ReQuIRes-rOoT: no
Thanks for considering,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a le
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 09:03:34AM -0500, Marvin Renich wrote:
> * Steve Langasek [230212 00:03]:
> > FWIW I think that it's the wrong thing to do if the "circumstances" include
> > reverse-dependencies on the package which expect to interact with the
> &g
- it ships a service,
- it is a new install or an upgrade on a system where the service was
previously started successfully, and
- the service fails to start in the postinst.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set
is no need for a
> sysvinit script in these cases, but Policy requires it.)
In my mind, the intent of the current policy language is to require an init
script matching any .service units, not for .socket or .timer units.
Perhaps the text should be refined to be systemd-specific instead of
continuin
ve was not consulted before ubuntu.series was inflicted
on us, but other derivatives who like this feature must be consulted before
upstream will un-break it for Ubuntu.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I
t
that. Policy also doesn'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.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian De
ream
in Ubuntu only, and handle new Debian package versions via a manual merge.
There is no need for a third workflow to accommodate improperly-upstreamed
patches and breaking the behavior of dpkg-source.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
iles. It's not how any
downstream is actually managing their delta from Debian.
> We are actively working on the relevant processes and tools right now.
> Let's see what things look like once we reach the end of that work
> before escalating this bug anywhere.
--
Steve Langasek
a pointer to
/usr/share/common-licenses. If people feel that it's insufficiently obvious
that this is the correct usage of the field, by all means, let's document
that better; but let's not make a backwards-incompatible change to the
syntax that doesn't benefit users of the file.
Cheers,
--
Steve
be fixed in stretch)
>
> (And the consequential lintian change.)
>
> I am not yet supplying patches for dpkg-source and for policy, because
> I think deprecating this feature will involve some discussion.
Seconded (the sentiment, and specifically the requested policy chan
ity via the
debian-policy mailing list. Have you done this? If not, the work is not
"done".
But I would invite you to engage in this process and help to improve Policy.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set i
and I (among others in this discussion) do not consider
this text to be in a state that's suitable for release as a new version of
policy.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Dev
applied when packages go through binary NEW.
They are thus being applied inconsistently when new binary packages are
added, and are otherwise not enforced. This is problematic on several
levels.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
(and other hardware) detection and installation help offered
post install [like ubuntu has]
It severely harms your credibility that you are complaining that Debian is
not secure, and then go on to insist that Debian should make it easier to
install unauditable non-free drivers.
--
Steve Langasek
which was never the intent of policy.
I will write more on this subject soon.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp
this without
the complete source.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com
among the cooperating group of
packages, with hints from lintian, and doesn't require a statement in policy
itself.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
that git commits are announced on debian-policy. Could someone
set this up?
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp
for policy to forbid it.
If this case isn't special enough to be in policy (which may be fair,
given harden-*), we can get a specific ruling on it with another team.
Rather, IMHO it's too special to enshrine in policy.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
use dh_autoreconf over
dh_autotools-dev.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com
is delegated
or not.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com
owned by mime-support, clearly any package
which is consuming it should already be depending on it). In that case, no
additional policy language is needed, other than to make it clear which of
these two interfaces we are recommending that maintainers use.
--
Steve Langasek Give me
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:45:48AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Dear all,
do you think it would make sense to remove the FHS exception for the /selinux
directory in the next version of the Policy ?
See the attached patch.
Seconded.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long
that are GPLv2 only.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com
maintainers can refer to them.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com
be blocked. You can put anything you
want to in debian/copyright, in any format you like - you just can't call it
copyright-format 1.0. Changing the header to not claim that it *is*
copyright-format 1.0 is a simple requirement.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough
resolution at build time, a missing library
reference will be caught early as a fatal build error.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
. Does this mean the package should /
must be updated to include this additional licence alternative(s)?
You're certainly allowed to... but there's no requirement.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set
implemented in the archive in startpar/sysvinit/debhelper, so this is now a
matter of documenting existing practice and documenting the correct
constraints on the use of upstart jobs in packages, which I think meets your
criteria.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long
.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor
will not be removed
*unless* the postrm does it. This is true whether the directory is shipped
in the package or created in the postinst.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world
directories
under /var/lib as a dumping ground for arbitrary files and then expect these
files to be retained when the package is purged.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
.
No, this is not a correct use of Priority: required. The functionality
*should* be in the adduser package, not in the passwd package; but that's
not a sound reason to raise the priority of adduser, and raising the
priority doesn't guarantee usability in the postrm anyway.
--
Steve Langasek
, it most certainly does.
6.1. Powers
The Technical Committee may:
1. Decide on any matter of technical policy.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
to make this reliable, I don't think
this aesthetic preference counts for much.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp
.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor
it ensure
that the override status for the service is applied to all init systems?
- How should an admin disable a service to make sure it's disabled for all
init systems?
I think the answer to the second is definitely not 'update-rc.d disable'.
--
Steve Langasek Give me
a larger window when the
service will be down on upgrade - and the services that have bothered to use
'restart' in the postinst usually do so to prevent exactly this.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can
is always safe to call regardless of any invoke-rc.d
or runlevel policy. But calling '/etc/init.d/$service start' directly from
a hook would be just as broken as calling it from a maintainer script,
because it bypasses said policy.
So this should be a non-issue.
--
Steve Langasek
we perhaps take this to the other
bug?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com
to still handle the stop case, because the restart and
force-reload actions are so often implemented on top of start+stop.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
Policy provide some sample code for how to do that,
since otherwise people are going to get this wrong.
Ok, example included based on the patch in bug #661109.
Updated patch attached.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
. These are the commands that must not be called from maintainer
scripts. It has nothing to do with invocation of /etc/init.d/package
scripts, which is already prohibited elsewhere in policy.
Is there a word that you think would be less ambiguous than command for
expressing this?
--
Steve Langasek
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 04:00:11PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
I think you've misunderstood the intent here. When upstart is
installed, it provides *commands* called start, restart, reload,
and stop in /sbin. These are the commands that must
not too invasive.
It would be nice to have a formal grammar down the line, but that's also too
large of a change for 1.0.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
, it
ought not be standardized at all.
Now, given that git seems to be the only widespread VCS with theis problem, I
wouldn't object to codifying Vcs- fields for the others in the meantime; but
some people might find it equally unpalatable to specify fields for
everything except git.
--
Steve Langasek
be documented in the Policy.
Policy is for documenting what *SHOULD* be done. It doesn't matter if it's
10 or 1000 packages that are using Vcs-Git today; if the syntax is broken,
it shouldn't go in policy.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian
On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 09:58:45AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Comments, objections, seconds?
Seconded.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
the rest and simply note
that an unrecognized format is being used. But when the file says it's
using DEP-5, it should be DEP-5.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
even if it will increase
the difficulty to search for previous discussions on the topic.
That's fair. Updated patch attached.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu
: GPL-2+ with OpenSSL exception
This program is free software [...] as a special exception, [...]
On Debian systems, [...]
Perhaps the spec should be clarified to make this more explicit?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
, but I don't believe the intent is to allow
*defined* fields to be used in paragraphs where they are not specified to be
permitted - only to allow new field names to be used. So I think something
like the attached patch should be applied. Thoughts?
--
Steve Langasek Give me
version, and
it is wholly false to say that this information does not belong in a
license field.
You may find the current behavior inconsistent, but it's the right thing to
do.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set
-orig-source should be provided instead.
This is a bug filed against debian-policy, though, not against bzr-builddeb.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 11:55:20AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 04:28:41PM -0500, Steve Langasek a écrit :
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:58:02PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 13:49:53 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Here is a patch.
According to apt
exception refers
to the text added to the license notice of each file as
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp
-policy is the mailing
list for discussions of Debian's *technical* policy; you seem to be
discussing some other sort of political policy, but I'm not sure what you're
referring to because there's no context for your post to this list.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough
for future versions of the standard, it's worth covering this case
even if it's only a hypothetical; but there's no reason to hold up 1.0 for
something that's going to require parser changes and isn't in use anywhere.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
arbitrary
preferences of word choice) is a waste of everyone's time and I'm inclined
to ignore this altogether in favor of working on the real problems with the
text.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I
and Font exceptions
because it's both easy to parse and reads naturally in English.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 07:24:21PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
I think merging such changes (which at a glance appear to include arbitrary
preferences of word choice) is a waste of everyone's time and I'm inclined
to ignore this altogether in favor of working
implementations can make use of
it.
Does this refer to aliases standardized in the LSB, or to some other
standard? (I'd answer this for myself, but once again it looks like I can't
find the text of the LSB when I'm looking for it...)
Updated patch attached.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek
(and
not be a no-op) when init is sysvinit.
I agree that these are the relevant principles, but I think Policy should
spell out exact requirements for each init system.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I
to explicitly state this
only applies to modules from the perl source package.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp
that real packages will be given
preference, or that main packages will be given preference over non-free
ones, when resolving virtual packages?
In any case, you can't have versioned provides, so there are some use cases
where this would still not be sufficient.
--
Steve Langasek
be allowed. However, it would still be buggy under
Policy.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga
not happy to
see this integrated into policy as-is.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com
of it/strong?
Because not everyone who cares to know what rights they have to the software
knows what the MPL is (or has its terms memorized) in the first place!
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move
the MPL certainly is.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com
. Since this is contentious, I propose the
more conservative policy be applied, as per the attached patch.
Comments?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
?
So to be clear, the claim here is that it's ok to list License: LGPL-2+
(or something of the sort), but have the license stanza contain the text of
LGPL-3? Or if that's not what you mean, could you please provide a concrete
example of the usage at issue?
--
Steve Langasek Give me
distinguishing between the upstream granted license
and the effective license, that's going to require much better tooling for
automating this than we have now.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move
'1.1' with '1.2' in the license declaration, fwiw.
I don't know whether a clarification in policy is needed to cover this. (I
don't think it's a syntactic question, so doesn't really belong in DEP-5.)
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian
with architecture amd64.
Sounds sensible to me.
I agree.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga
changes.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor
forward; but that's indisputably
the most disruptive to the archive, so I would hope we could reach agreement
that some or all of the other options are better.)
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I
for debian/rules.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com
-arch is not
supported, falling back to debian/rules build, without stirring up the old
arguments about whether we want to keep Policy 4.9.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu
approach,
It is the most error-prone.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com
to work
with the maintainer to see the latest upstream version of make
packaged in experimental, but for a while now the maintainer has been
hard to reach.
I think it would be reasonable to let the MIA team know about Manoj's
protracted absence (DevRef 7.4).
--
Steve Langasek
to build or whose binary packages changed in size
substantially (though as mentioned before, because debian/rules
binary-arch is suppposed to work on its own already, I'm not too worried
about it).
That part is apparently trivial, as I seem to have written a patch for it 4
years ago :-)
--
Steve
route, I would be more than happy to do an NMU of make to facilitate this.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp
to telling maintainers they must not delete system users,
without also giving guidance on how and when to lock the accounts.
Sorry, no time at the moment to propose verbiage to reconcile this with your
concerns.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian
is actually missing in Policy?
(If one wishes to argue that /etc/sasldb2 is not a configuration file, then
it's also a policy violation for it to be under /etc.)
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:02:46PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Samstag, 30. April 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
10.7.3: If the existence of a [configuration] file is required for the
package to be sensibly configured it is the responsibility of the package
maintainer to provide maintainer
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 03:49:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
(If one wishes to argue that /etc/sasldb2 is not a configuration file,
then it's also a policy violation for it to be under /etc.)
It's basically similar to /etc/shadow.
I don't think
is adduser/deluser, and if that interface isn't
sufficiently straightforward we should remedy that directly.
I'm not sure if debhelper can help here. I guess we would need a new config
file (debian/users?), but I'm not sure it could be done with a very
debhelper-like syntax.
--
Steve Langasek
) and should not be
abused like this.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com
not
convinced putting this in policy adds much value.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga
to fix.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor
are the other members of the openmotif
source package.
Yeah, this whole section looks completely obsolete. I think we should
just remove it entirely. Objections or seconds?
Seconded.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 05:21:59PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
http://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/Bootstrapping
The current ld.so doesn't yet know about the final path (on i386), so
libraries can't switch to using it or they'll fail to be found by the
runtime
any rules; and it's not really informative either because we're
not actually providing much information yet. :) Do you think there is a
specific recommendation policy should make right now, or should we defer
amending policy until the prelim implementation is farther along in
unstable?
--
Steve
forgotten that
this report was open!
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com
) and
addresses 2) not at all.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com
this bug
along its way? :) Note that the dpkg implementation of what's described
here is imminent, so it would be good to have confirmation that it's ok on
the policy side for us to use this.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
fallout.
Thoughts?
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com
, the same
way having C libraries call setuid() or exit() offends me. :) Also, this
check is only needed for those packages that *ship* an upstart job, and
surely those packages know who they are and can handle the conversion easily
enough if we give them a function to call?
--
Steve Langasek
for implementation and the interface packages should use to query these
paths.
Cc:ing the respective maintainer mailing lists for sign-off.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world
1 - 100 of 367 matches
Mail list logo
