Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, tagging 872900

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to 'package':'debian-policy'

> tags 872900 + pending
Bug #872900 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Very generic info file name
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
872900: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=872900
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#872950: debian-policy: Too much indirection in info file menus

[Russ Allbery]

Control: tags -1 pending

Guillem Jover  writes:

> The info file, on its initial page contains a Menu with the following
> entries:

> ,---
> * Menu:

> * Version::
> * Contents::
> * Legal Notice::
> `---

> For which Version contains a one-liner. It would be nicer if Contents
> would get expanded into the main Menu.

I managed to fix this as well by leaving out the section headings in the
top-level document.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Processed: Re: Bug#872896: debian-policy: An html.tar.gz has leaked into the .deb?

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tags -1 pending
Bug #872896 [debian-policy] debian-policy: An html.tar.gz has leaked into the 
.deb?
Added tag(s) pending.

-- 
872896: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=872896
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#872896: debian-policy: An html.tar.gz has leaked into the .deb?

[Russ Allbery]

Control: tags -1 pending

Guillem Jover  writes:

> It seems that an html.tar.gz has leaked (?) into the .deb, which
> contains the single single html file plus ancillary files. It is
> not clear whether this is an intentional change as it's not listed
> on the changelog. It looks at least a bit redundant.

Fixed.  Thanks!

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Bug#872900: debian-policy: Very generic info file name

[Russ Allbery]

Guillem Jover  writes:

> While I'm not a very big fan of info files (even when using pinfo),
> it seems for now it's the only way to get section numbers w/o having
> to use a browser. :/ So while using it I noticed that it has been
> installed with an extremely generic name, for something that is a
> global resource. I think it should be renamed to debian-policy.

Fixed in Git.  Thanks!

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Processed: Re: Bug#872950: debian-policy: Too much indirection in info file menus

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tags -1 pending
Bug #872950 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Too much indirection in info file 
menus
Added tag(s) pending.

-- 
872950: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=872950
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#872893: debian-policy: Chapters, sections, appendices and numbering

[Russ Allbery]

Control: tags -1 pending

Guillem Jover  writes:

> The appendices are also not easily distinguishable from the other
> sections as they also use numbers intead of say letters.

This is https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/issues/2502.  I'm going to
close out this specific bug number against Policy by fixing the numbering
and nesting for the main chapters, since I think the appendix numbering is
liveable, but we'll definitely fix this if some solution materializes.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Processed: Re: Bug#872893: debian-policy: Chapters, sections, appendices and numbering

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tags -1 pending
Bug #872893 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Chapters, sections, appendices and 
numbering
Added tag(s) pending.

-- 
872893: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=872893
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#872893: debian-policy: Chapters, sections, appendices and numbering

[Russ Allbery]

Guillem Jover  writes:

> Well, that's unfortunate. :( And I've just noticed 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.

Yeah, both the info and PDF documentation have that issue, but HTML
doesn't.  I haven't looked at epub, but it's probably just the HTML output
in another form.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Bug#872893: debian-policy: Chapters, sections, appendices and numbering

[Russ Allbery]

Guillem Jover  writes:

> At least on the PDF output, the section numbers are wrong, as there are
> now two chapters that include the old sections.

I think I've fixed this.  For reference, the first problem was the
headings in the top-level document for the abstract and the license.  When
I fixed that, Sphinx got a bit more confused, but adding the document
title with the highest-level heading (as documented in the Sphinx docs)
seems to have cleaned that up.

The license got appended to the end of the upgrading checklist if it was
just at the end of the top-level index, so I made it a separate appendix.
The alternative was to put it in front of the main text, and that seemed
awkward.

> The appendices are also not easily distinguishable from the other
> sections as they also use numbers intead of say letters.

This unfortunately really doesn't seem to be fixable in Sphinx right now,
which is frustrating.  :(  But it's more incentive to get rid of the
packaging manual appendices, which are basically long-standing technical
debt, and incorporate that material directly into Policy.  That leaves the
process and the upgrading checklist, which I think could be just left as a
final section of the document.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Bug#872895: debian-policy: Split html for policy lost

[Russ Allbery]

Control: tags -1 pending

Guillem Jover  writes:

> This version has lost the distinction between a single policy html and
> the one with different files per chapter. This will break links.

Okay, I think this is fixed in Git and Policy should now ship both the
single-file and the multi-file versions in the same directories they were
in before the conversion to reStructuredText.  The multi-file version is
in policy.html and the single-file version is policy-1.html.

This also required adding _static and _images to the top-level of the
usr/share/doc directory because single-file from Sphinx isn't strictly
single file (and we have images now), but I think it should all work.  The
tricky part will be on the debian-www side in copying things over.  I'll
give them a warning that more changes are coming.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Processed: Re: Bug#872895: debian-policy: Split html for policy lost

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tags -1 pending
Bug #872895 [debian-policy] Include multi-page HTML in package
Added tag(s) pending.

-- 
872895: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=872895
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#872893: debian-policy: Chapters, sections, appendices and numbering

[Russ Allbery]

Guillem Jover  writes:
> On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 10:44:32 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:

>> Could you explain "two chapters that include the old sections", please?
>> Or just say which sections are wrong.

>> We tried hard to avoid this, so it's definitely a bug.

> Take section «10.9.1. The use of dpkg-statoverride», this is correct on
> the HTML output and info file, on the PDF it's a section w/o a number
> inside §2.10.9. I've not checked the EPUB file.

Yeah, Sphinx is doing something really weird with how it does section
numbering.  It's counting the top-level document as having three sections
and embedding the contents in section "2" and pushing everything down.
This is the same problem the info documentation is having.

I'll take a look and try to figure out some solution.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Bug#872893: debian-policy: Chapters, sections, appendices and numbering

[Sean Whitton]

On Tue, Aug 22 2017, Guillem Jover wrote:

> Take section «10.9.1. The use of dpkg-statoverride», this is correct
> on the HTML output and info file, on the PDF it's a section w/o a
> number inside §2.10.9. I've not checked the EPUB file.

Thanks!

> And I've just noticed 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 a bug -- thanks.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Processed: Re: Bug#872895: debian-policy: Split html for policy lost

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> retitle -1 Include multi-page HTML in package
Bug #872895 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Split html for policy lost
Changed Bug title to 'Include multi-page HTML in package' from 'debian-policy: 
Split html for policy lost'.

-- 
872895: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=872895
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#872895: debian-policy: Split html for policy lost

[Sean Whitton]

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
>
> More than nice, please.  I don't really deal with huge single-page
> documents.  Besides you wrote:
>> The single page output is much more useful to casual readers wanting
>> to look something up
> I deem this completely subjective, please don't assume such assertion as
> facts.  Also, I don't consider myself a "causual reader" and when I want
> to read something up I know what's the name of the paragrah, pick it
> from the index and then head to the relevant, single page.

Right, indeed, you're not a casual reader, and we would expect you to
have the Debian package installed.  I think the web version should be
tailored for people coming from outside the project who don't know that
such a package exists.  For them, it's easier to have a single page.

This is subjective but that doesn't preclude me making a judgement about
what most people would prefer, based on my experience.

>> - since we're publishing only the single-page version on
>> www.debian.org, we need to rewrite the links
>
> Please do publish both.

On Tue, Aug 22 2017, Guillem Jover wrote:

> I guess there are two problems here, one is indeed completely losing
> the multi-page rendering from the package. The other is the default
> change in the web site. IMO the best solution, and what is customary,
> is to present both (or more) rendering and let the user select:
>
>   [HTML one-page] [HTML multi-page] [PDF] [EPUB]

So you'd like https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ to be a menu?

I think that those who want this should file a bug against
www.debian.org.  It's not really in our purview, since we don't maintain
the script that maintains the /doc/ directory.  Hence I'm retitling this
bug to the part that is the policy editors' responsibility.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#872956: [debian-policy] warn about danger of pipe in shell snippet of makefile

[Jonathan Nieder]

Hi,

Bastien ROUCARIÈS wrote:

> set -e is not suffisant to detect error in pipe context
>
> cat nonexistant | sed s/some//g will hapilly return 0 and do not fail
>
> exec 3>&1; s=$(exec 4>&1 >&3; { cat nonexistant ; echo $? >&4; } | sed 
> s/some//g ) && exit $s
>
> this could be simplified by using make function
> PIPESAFE=exec 3>&1; s=$$(exec 4>&1 >&3; { $(1) ; echo $$? >&4; } | $(2)) && 
> exit $$s
>
> Could deserve a footnote on 4.6. Error trapping in makefiles

I don't think this belongs in policy.  Maybe devref?

By the way, if you're using bash
(https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Choosing-the-Shell.html),
you can use "set -o pipefail" to handle this kind of case.

Thanks,
Jonathan

Bug#872956: [debian-policy] warn about danger of pipe in shell snippet of makefile

[Bastien ROUCARIÈS]

Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.0.1.0
Severity: normal

set -e is not suffisant to detect error in pipe context

cat nonexistant | sed s/some//g will hapilly return 0 and do not fail

exec 3>&1; s=$(exec 4>&1 >&3; { cat nonexistant ; echo $? >&4; } | sed 
s/some//g ) && exit $s

this could be simplified by using make function
PIPESAFE=exec 3>&1; s=$$(exec 4>&1 >&3; { $(1) ; echo $$? >&4; } | $(2)) && 
exit $$s

Could deserve a footnote on 4.6. Error trapping in makefiles





signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#872950: debian-policy: Too much indirection in info file menus

[Russ Allbery]

Guillem Jover  writes:

> The info file, on its initial page contains a Menu with the following
> entries:

> ,---
> * Menu:

> * Version::
> * Contents::
> * Legal Notice::
> `---

> For which Version contains a one-liner. It would be nicer if Contents
> would get expanded into the main Menu.

Just FYI, some of these bugs are likely to be assigned to Sphinx (with
affects on debian-policy), since I think this is just generic upstream
Sphinx behavior, but I'll take a look and see if there's a way to make
this better before reassigning.

(We didn't have info pages before, so I just turned this on because we
could, as sort of a bonus.)

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Bug#872950: debian-policy: Too much indirection in info file menus

[Guillem Jover]

Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.0.0

Hi!

The info file, on its initial page contains a Menu with the following
entries:

,---
* Menu:

* Version::
* Contents::
* Legal Notice::
`---

For which Version contains a one-liner. It would be nicer if Contents
would get expanded into the main Menu.

Thanks,
Guillem

Bug#872895: debian-policy: Split html for policy lost

[Guillem Jover]

Hi!

On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 11:09:37 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Sean Whitton wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 22 2017, Guillem Jover wrote:
> >> This version has lost the distinction between a single policy html and
> >> the one with different files per chapter. This will break links.
> >
> > This was intentional.  The single page output is much more useful to
> > casual readers wanting to look something up.

When I want to search for something in an on-line document I also
select the single-page document if it's available. Otherwise when I
want to navigate the document or read specific parts, I find the
multi-page way more pleasant and clear, because each chapter is
contained so I know how much there is to finish it, and scrolling or
using say the Ini/End key take you to the expected boundaries, and
it tends to have a global and intrapage TOCs to go to specific parts.

> I don't completely understand.  The old rendering had both single page
> and multi-page versions.  If I understand what you're saying, it is a
> reason that the single-page version is useful, but why does that
> preclude also providing the multi-page rendering?

I guess there are two problems here, one is indeed completely losing
the multi-page rendering from the package. The other is the default
change in the web site. IMO the best solution, and what is customary,
is to present both (or more) rendering and let the user select:

  [HTML one-page] [HTML multi-page] [PDF] [EPUB]

Thanks,
Guillem

Bug#872895: debian-policy: Split html for policy lost

[Mattia Rizzolo]

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

More than nice, please.  I don't really deal with huge single-page
documents.  Besides you wrote:
> The single page output is much more useful to casual readers wanting
> to look something up
I deem this completely subjective, please don't assume such assertion as
facts.  Also, I don't consider myself a "causual reader" and when I want
to read something up I know what's the name of the paragrah, pick it
from the index and then head to the relevant, single page.

> - since we're publishing only the single-page version on www.debian.org,
>   we need to rewrite the links

Please do publish both.

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#872900: debian-policy: Very generic info file name

[Guillem Jover]

Hi!

On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 09:44:02 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover  writes:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Version: 4.1.0.0
> 
> > While I'm not a very big fan of info files (even when using pinfo),
> > it seems for now it's the only way to get section numbers w/o having
> > to use a browser. :/
> 
> w3m works very well, FWIW.

Right, although when using a browser on a terminal I tend to use
elinks/links, it's just that this is less convenient. :)

In any, case I've just updated my deb-policy script to handle this
for me :) for now:

,--- ~/bin/deb-policy ---
#!/bin/sh
base=/usr/share/doc/debian-policy
if [ "$1" = '--upgrade' ]; then
  exec pager $base/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz
elif [ -e $base/policy.html/objects.inv ]; then
  links -dump $base/policy.html/index.html | exec pager
else
  exec pager $base/policy.txt.gz
fi
`---

Thanks,
Guillem

Bug#872944: www.debian.org: Debian Policy Manual not fully published

[Sean Whitton]

Package: www.debian.org
Severity: important

Hello webmasters,

The Debian Policy Manual just changed its HTML output and while the
HTML has published, the CSS and included images have not.

Looking at [1], the CSS and included images should have been published
because they're still installed to
/usr/share/doc/debian-policy/policy.html/.  So I think this is a problem
on your end rather than ours.  Please do reassign this bug if I'm wrong
about that, and thanks in advance for your help.

[1]  https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debwww/cron.git/tree/parts/7doc

-- System Information:
Debian Release: buster/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (900, 'testing'), (100, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 4.12.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), 
LANGUAGE=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

Bug#872895: debian-policy: Split html for policy lost

[Sean Whitton]

Hello Jonathan,

On Tue, Aug 22 2017, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

> I don't completely understand.  The old rendering had both single page
> and multi-page versions.  If I understand what you're saying, it is a
> reason that the single-page version is useful, but why does that
> 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


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Processed: Re: Bug#872893: debian-policy: Chapters, sections, appendices and numbering

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tag -1 +moreinfo
Bug #872893 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Chapters, sections, appendices and 
numbering
Added tag(s) moreinfo.

-- 
872893: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=872893
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#872893: debian-policy: Chapters, sections, appendices and numbering

[Sean Whitton]

control: tag -1 +moreinfo

Hello Guillem,

On Tue, Aug 22 2017, Guillem Jover wrote:

> At least on the PDF output, the section numbers are wrong, as there
> are now two chapters that include the old sections.

Could you explain "two chapters that include the old sections", please?
Or just say which sections are wrong.

We tried hard to avoid this, so it's definitely a bug.

> The appendices are also not easily distinguishable from the other
> sections as they also use numbers intead of say letters.

This is a limitation of Sphinx.  We aren't going to fix it unless a new
feature arrives from upstream.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: policy 4.1.0 HTML doc is not fully uploaded to www.debian.org site

[Sean Whitton]

Hello Hideki,

On Tue, Aug 22 2017, Hideki Yamane wrote:

>  Thanks for uploading policy version 4.1.0, but it is not fully uploaded
>  to the site, seems that only index.html is done. For example, 
>  https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/_static/nature.css doesn't exist.

I get 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

Bug#872895: debian-policy: Split html for policy lost

[Sean Whitton]

Hello Guillem,

On Tue, Aug 22 2017, Guillem Jover wrote:

> This version has lost the distinction between a single policy html and
> the one with different files per chapter. This will break links.

This was intentional.  The single page output is much more useful to
casual readers wanting 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

Bug#872896: debian-policy: An html.tar.gz has leaked into the .deb?

[Sean Whitton]

Hello Guillem,

On Tue, Aug 22 2017, Guillem Jover wrote:

> It seems that an html.tar.gz has leaked (?) into the .deb, which
> contains the single single html file plus ancillary files. It is
> not clear whether this is an intentional change as it's not listed
> on the changelog. 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

Bug#683222: debian-policy: Policy section 4.4 is imprecise with respect to section 12.7

[Sean Whitton]

control: tag -1 +pending

Hello,

On Tue, Aug 22 2017, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:

> LGTM, seconded.

Applied, thanks.

> That said, I'd expect the upgrade-checklist to say that this change is
> about clarifying that debian/copyright must exist (where before it was
> "fine" 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

Processed: Re: Bug#683222: debian-policy: Policy section 4.4 is imprecise with respect to section 12.7

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tag -1 +pending
Bug #683222 [debian-policy] say explicitly that debian/changelog is required in 
source packages
Added tag(s) pending.

-- 
683222: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683222
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#872900: debian-policy: Very generic info file name

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

On Tue, Aug 22 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> So while using it I noticed that it has been installed with an
>> extremely generic name, for something that is a global resource. I
>> think it should be renamed to debian-policy.
>
> Ack, yes, this is my fault.  Will 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

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 872900 ...

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was 
spwhit...@spwhitton.name).
> limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to 'package':'debian-policy'

> usertags 872900 = packaging
There were no usertags set.
Usertags are now: packaging.
> severity 872900 minor
Bug #872900 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Very generic info file name
Severity set to 'minor' from 'normal'
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
872900: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=872900
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#872900: debian-policy: Very generic info file name

[Russ Allbery]

Guillem Jover  writes:

> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.1.0.0

> While I'm not a very big fan of info files (even when using pinfo),
> it seems for now it's the only way to get section numbers w/o having
> to use a browser. :/

w3m works very well, FWIW.  (And yeah, the lack of section numbers in the
text output is definitely a regression that we'll need to fix.)

> So while using it I noticed that it has been installed with an extremely
> generic name, for something that is a global resource. I think it should
> be renamed to debian-policy.

Ack, yes, this is my fault.  Will fix.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Re: Debian Policy 4.1.0.0 released

[Russ Allbery]

Aurelien Jarno  writes:
> On 2017-08-21 14:35, Sean Whitton wrote:

>> 9.1.1
>> Only the dynamic linker may install files to /lib64/.

> How is that supposed to work for the multilib glibc? For example
> libc6-amd64:i386 installs all its libraries into /lib64. We don't want
> to install these files in the multiarch path, as they will collide with
> the libc6:amd64 package. This is actually forbidden by the same
> paragraph of the policy (and that's a good thing).

> In the long term we should get ready of multilib now that we have
> multiarch, but it seems it's not something we are ready to do yet. I
> have added debian-...@lists.debian.org in Cc: as GCC is the main user of
> the multilib glibc.

Ack, thank you, we just didn't know about this and it didn't come up in
the discussion.  We can add an additional exception.  The goal here wasn't
to change any behavior of packages like that, only to keep ordinary
non-glibc, non-toolchain packages from using that directory because of
what Red Hat does or because of what the FHS says.

Would it resolve this to just make a general exception for libc?

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

policy 4.1.0 HTML doc is not fully uploaded to www.debian.org site

[Hideki Yamane]

Hi,

 Thanks for uploading policy version 4.1.0, but it is not fully uploaded
 to the site, seems that only index.html is done. For example, 
 https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/_static/nature.css doesn't exist.


-- 
Regards,

 Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.or.jp/org
 http://wiki.debian.org/HidekiYamane

Bug#872900: debian-policy: Very generic info file name

[Guillem Jover]

Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.0.0

Hi!

While I'm not a very big fan of info files (even when using pinfo),
it seems for now it's the only way to get section numbers w/o having
to use a browser. :/ So while using it I noticed that it has been
installed with an extremely generic name, for something that is a
global resource. I think it should be renamed to debian-policy.

Thanks,
Guillem

Bug#872896: debian-policy: An html.tar.gz has leaked into the .deb?

[Guillem Jover]

Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.0.0

Hi!

It seems that an html.tar.gz has leaked (?) into the .deb, which
contains the single single html file plus ancillary files. It is
not clear whether this is an intentional change as it's not listed
on the changelog. It looks at least a bit redundant.

Thanks,
Guillem

Bug#872895: debian-policy: Split html for policy lost

[Guillem Jover]

Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.0.0

Hi!

This version has lost the distinction between a single policy html and
the one with different files per chapter. This will break links.

Thanks,
Guillem

Bug#872893: debian-policy: Chapters, sections, appendices and numbering

[Guillem Jover]

Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.0.0

Hi!

At least on the PDF output, the section numbers are wrong, as there
are now two chapters that include the old sections.

The appendices are also not easily distinguishable from the other
sections as they also use numbers intead of say letters.

Thanks,
Guillem

Re: Debian Policy 4.1.0.0 released

[Aurelien Jarno]

Hi,

On 2017-08-21 14:35, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> Debian Policy 4.1.0.0 is on its way into unstable.
> 
> The source of the Policy Manual is now in reStructuredText, and the
> Sphinx toolchain is used to produce our output formats.  This has
> enabled us to introduce new ePub and Texinfo output formats, so it's now
> more comfortable to read Policy on the beach, and in Emacs.
> 
> Many thanks to Hideki Yamane for writing the rST conversion scripts and
> pushing the project forward, and David Bremner for help proofreading.
> Russ Allbery and I updated the build system.
> 
> We are seeking volunteers to design a Debian documentation Sphinx
> theme.  The maintainers of other core pieces of Debian documentation are
> also looking to move to Sphinx, so such a theme would see wide use.
> 
> Here are the changes from the previously announced version of Policy
> (4.0.1):
 
> 9.1.1
> Only the dynamic linker may install files to /lib64/.

How is that supposed to work for the multilib glibc? For example
libc6-amd64:i386 installs all its libraries into /lib64. We don't want
to install these files in the multiarch path, as they will collide with
the libc6:amd64 package. This is actually forbidden by the same
paragraph of the policy (and that's a good thing).

In the long term we should get ready of multilib now that we have
multiarch, but it seems it's not something we are ready to do yet. I
have added debian-...@lists.debian.org in Cc: as GCC is the main user
of the multilib glibc.

> No package for a 64 bit architecture may install files to
> /usr/lib64/ or any subdirectory.

I guess you want to use the same formulation for /lib64, it should only
be for 64-bit architecture. That said you should define what is a 64 bit
architecture. On x32 (not an official architecture) for example
libc6-amd64:x32 installs files in /lib64 and libc6-amd64-dev:x32
installs file in /usr/lib64. Is it considered a 32-bit architecture or
a 64-bit architecture?

Regards,
Aurelien

-- 
Aurelien Jarno  GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#683222: debian-policy: Policy section 4.4 is imprecise with respect to section 12.7

[Mattia Rizzolo]

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 05:22:12PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Commenting on Charles' patch, I think that it would be clearer to have
> the 'should' and 'must' requirements in separate sentences.

Good idea.

> diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst
> index f706a13..89b355a 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-source.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst
> @@ -99,10 +99,11 @@ later reconfigure the package without losing the changes 
> you made.
>  Debian changelog: ``debian/changelog``
>  --
>  
> -Changes in the Debian version of the package should be briefly explained
> -in the Debian changelog file ``debian/changelog``.  [#]_ This includes
> -modifications made in the Debian package compared to the upstream one as
> -well as other changes and updates to the package.  [#]_
> +Every source package must include the Debian changelog file,
> +``debian/changelog``.  Changes in the Debian version of the package
> +should be briefly explained in this file.  [#]_ This includes
> +modifications made in the Debian package compared to 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

LGTM, seconded.


That said, I'd expect the upgrade-checklist to say that this change is
about clarifying that debian/copyright must exist (where before it was
"fine" not existing).

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature