Processed: src:developers-reference: fails to migrate to testing for too long: autopkgtest regression
Processing control commands: > close -1 13.7 Bug #1076489 [src:developers-reference] src:developers-reference: fails to migrate to testing for too long: autopkgtest regression Marked as fixed in versions developers-reference/13.7. Bug #1076489 [src:developers-reference] src:developers-reference: fails to migrate to testing for too long: autopkgtest regression Marked Bug as done -- 1076489: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1076489 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: tagging 1075856
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tags 1075856 + pending Bug #1075856 [debian-policy] Clarify filename conflicts for programs Added tag(s) pending. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 1075856: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1075856 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: gearman-server,gearman-job-server: install program with same name (gearmand)
Processing control commands: > block 1075856 by -1 Bug #1075856 [debian-policy] Clarify filename conflicts for programs 1075856 was blocked by: 1076221 1076223 1076219 1076218 1076217 1076220 1076216 1076225 1076224 1076215 1076222 1075856 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 1075856: 1076226 -- 1075856: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1075856 1076226: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1076226 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: apache2-utils,merecat: install program with same name (htpasswd)
Processing control commands: > block 1075856 by -1 Bug #1075856 [debian-policy] Clarify filename conflicts for programs 1075856 was blocked by: 1076215 1076220 1076221 1076216 1076224 1076219 1076218 1076222 1076217 1076223 1075856 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 1075856: 1076225 -- 1075856: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1075856 1076225: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1076225 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: ubuntu-dev-tools,libbpf-tools: install program with same name (bitesize)
Processing control commands: > block 1075856 by -1 Bug #1075856 [debian-policy] Clarify filename conflicts for programs 1075856 was blocked by: 1076216 1076215 1076220 1076218 1076222 1076217 1076221 1076223 1076219 1075856 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 1075856: 1076224 -- 1075856: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1075856 1076224: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1076224 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: tcputils,libbpf-tools: install program with same name (tcpconnect)
Processing control commands: > block 1075856 by -1 Bug #1075856 [debian-policy] Clarify filename conflicts for programs 1075856 was blocked by: 1076222 1076216 1076215 1076221 1076220 1076218 1076217 1076219 1075856 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 1075856: 1076223 -- 1075856: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1075856 1076223: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1076223 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: tcpd,tcm: install program with same name (tcpd)
Processing control commands: > block 1075856 by -1 Bug #1075856 [debian-policy] Clarify filename conflicts for programs 1075856 was blocked by: 1076215 1076217 1076216 1076221 1076220 1076218 1076219 1075856 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 1075856: 1076222 -- 1075856: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1075856 1076222: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1076222 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: siggen,tripwire: install program with same name (siggen)
Processing control commands: > block 1075856 by -1 Bug #1075856 [debian-policy] Clarify filename conflicts for programs 1075856 was blocked by: 1076219 1076220 1076218 1076217 1076215 1076216 1075856 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 1075856: 1076221 -- 1075856: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1075856 1076221: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1076221 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: ipmiutil,renameutils: install program with same name (icmd)
Processing control commands: > block 1075856 by -1 Bug #1075856 [debian-policy] Clarify filename conflicts for programs 1075856 was blocked by: 1076217 1076218 1076216 1076215 1076219 1075856 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 1075856: 1076220 -- 1075856: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1075856 1076220: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1076220 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: freeradius,librad0-tools: install program with same name (raddebug)
Processing control commands: > block 1075856 by -1 Bug #1075856 [debian-policy] Clarify filename conflicts for programs 1075856 was blocked by: 1076215 1076216 1076217 1076218 1075856 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 1075856: 1076219 -- 1075856: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1075856 1076219: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1076219 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: nordugrid-arc-client,zfsutils-linux: install program with same name (arcstat)
Processing control commands: > block 1075856 by -1 Bug #1075856 [debian-policy] Clarify filename conflicts for programs 1075856 was blocked by: 1076216 1076217 1076215 1075856 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 1075856: 1076218 -- 1075856: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1075856 1076218: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1076218 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: locales,gosa-dev: install program with same name (update-locale)
Processing control commands: > block 1075856 by -1 Bug #1075856 [debian-policy] Clarify filename conflicts for programs 1075856 was blocked by: 1076215 1076216 1075856 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 1075856: 1076217 -- 1075856: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1075856 1076217: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1076217 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: fai,python3-flask-autoindex: install program with same name (fai)
Processing control commands: > block 1075856 by -1 Bug #1075856 [debian-policy] Clarify filename conflicts for programs 1075856 was blocked by: 1076215 1075856 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 1075856: 1076216 -- 1075856: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1075856 1076216: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1076216 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: ax25-tools,dahdi-tools: install program with same name (sethdlc)
Processing control commands: > block 1075856 by -1 Bug #1075856 [debian-policy] Clarify filename conflicts for programs 1075856 was not blocked by any bugs. 1075856 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 1075856: 1076215 -- 1075856: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1075856 1076215: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1076215 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Re: developers-reference: issue with sidebar in singlehtml variant on small screens
Processing control commands: > reassign -1 src:sphinx-rtd-theme Bug #1075914 [developers-reference] developers-reference: issue with sidebar in singlehtml variant on small screens Bug reassigned from package 'developers-reference' to 'src:sphinx-rtd-theme'. No longer marked as found in versions developers-reference/13.7. Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #1075914 to the same values previously set > affects -1 developers-reference Bug #1075914 [src:sphinx-rtd-theme] developers-reference: issue with sidebar in singlehtml variant on small screens Added indication that 1075914 affects developers-reference > tags -1 patch Bug #1075914 [src:sphinx-rtd-theme] developers-reference: issue with sidebar in singlehtml variant on small screens Added tag(s) patch. -- 1075914: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1075914 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Re: Bug#1075914: Acknowledgement (developers-reference: issue with sidebar in singlehtml variant on small screens)
Processing control commands: > forwarded -1 https://github.com/readthedocs/sphinx_rtd_theme/issues/880 Bug #1075914 [developers-reference] developers-reference: issue with sidebar in singlehtml variant on small screens Set Bug forwarded-to-address to 'https://github.com/readthedocs/sphinx_rtd_theme/issues/880'. -- 1075914: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1075914 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Clarify filename conflicts for programs
Processing control commands: > tags -1 + patch Bug #1075856 [debian-policy] Clarify filename conflicts for programs Added tag(s) patch. -- 1075856: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1075856 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Re: Bug#1074014: encode mandatory merged-/usr into policy
Processing control commands: > tags -1 + patch Bug #1074014 [debian-policy] encode mandatory merged-/usr into policy Added tag(s) patch. -- 1074014: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1074014 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Re: Bug#1074083: create .../man/man/
Processing control commands: > reassign -1 debian-policy Bug #1074083 [man-db] create .../man/man/ Bug reassigned from package 'man-db' to 'debian-policy'. No longer marked as found in versions man-db/2.12.1-2. Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #1074083 to the same values previously set -- 1074083: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1074083 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Re: Bug#1069934: 4.9.2. The dak ls utility should mention rmadison
Processing control commands: > severity -1 wishlist Bug #1069934 [developers-reference] 4.9.2. The dak ls utility should mention rmadison Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'normal' -- 1069934: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1069934 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Re: base-files: /var/run and /var/lock should not be absolute symlinks
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > reassign 1039979 debian-policy Bug #1039979 [base-files] base-files: /var/run and /var/lock should not be absolute symlinks Bug reassigned from package 'base-files' to 'debian-policy'. No longer marked as found in versions base-files/12.4 and base-files/12.4+deb12u1. Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #1039979 to the same values previously set > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 1039979: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1039979 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1039102: marked as done (debian-policy: make systemd units mandatory for packages shipping system services)
Your message dated Sun, 07 Apr 2024 05:34:04 + with message-id and subject line Bug#1039102: fixed in debian-policy 4.7.0.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #1039102, regarding debian-policy: make systemd units mandatory for packages shipping system services to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1039102: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1039102 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: debian-policy X-Debbugs-Cc: pkg-systemd-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org systemd upstream will drop support for the transitional sysv generator in the near future. The transition is long finished, it's been at least a decade, and it's time for the tail of packages still shipping only init scripts but not units to be updated. Tentatively this should happen within Trixie's development cycle. Of course it's free software and generators are not that difficult to maintain, so if someone wanted to lift the sysv generator out of the systemd repository and adapt it to be a standalone binary there's nothing stopping them. But I wouldn't want the systemd package to depend on such a backward compat tool, so packages needing this hyptothetical package should depend explicitly on it. This is just mentioned for completeness, it's been at least a decade and writing a unit file is beyond trivial so there shouldn't be any issue adding the few remaining ones. Once the policy is updated I plan to ask Lintian to bump the severity of the existing check: https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/merge_requests/407 Patch attached and pushed to https://salsa.debian.org/bluca/policy/-/commits/mandatory_units?ref_type=heads -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi From ea524f52d256e37b4e4747d7e6ac4f316c4805a8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luca Boccassi Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2023 18:42:29 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] system services: make systemd units mandatory systemd upstream will drop support for the transitional sysv generator in the near future. The transition is long finished, and it's time for the tail of packages still shipping only init scripts but not units to be updated. --- policy/ch-opersys.rst | 20 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/policy/ch-opersys.rst b/policy/ch-opersys.rst index 207b3c0..3134783 100644 --- a/policy/ch-opersys.rst +++ b/policy/ch-opersys.rst @@ -328,16 +328,12 @@ Starting system services Introduction -Packages that include system services should include ``systemd`` service +Packages that include system services must include ``systemd`` service units to start or stop those services. See :manpage:`systemd.service(5)` for details on the syntax of a service unit file. In the common case that a package includes a single system service, the service unit should have the same name as the package plus the ``.service`` extension. -If the package does not include a service unit (if, for example, no one -has yet written one), including an init script, as described below, to -start the service is encouraged. - Packages including a service unit may optionally include an init script to support other init systems. In this case, the init script should have the same name as the ``systemd`` service unit so that ``systemd`` will ignore @@ -345,13 +341,13 @@ it and use the service unit instead. Packages may also support other init systems by including configuration in the native format of those init systems. -If a service unit is not present, ``systemd`` uses dependency information -contained within the init scripts and symlinks in ``/etc/rcn.d`` to decide -which scripts to run and in which order. The ``sysv-rc`` runlevel system -for ``sysvinit`` uses the same symlinks in ``/etc/rcn.d`` to decide which -scripts to run and in which order at boot time and when the init state (or -"runlevel") is changed. See the ``README.runlevels`` file shipped with -``sysv-rc`` for implementation details. Other alternatives might exist. +``systemd`` uses dependency and ordering information contained within the +enabled unit files to decide which services to run and in which order. +The ``sysv-rc`` runlevel system for ``sysvinit`` uses symlinks in +``/etc/rcn.d`` to decide which scripts to run and in which order at boot +time and when the init state (or "runlevel") is changed. See the +``README.runlevels`` file shipped with ``sysv-rc`` for implementation details. +Other alternatives might exist. The sections below describe how to write those scripts and configure those
Bug#1035733: marked as done (debian -policy: packages must not use dpkg-divert to override default systemd configuraton files)
Your message dated Sun, 07 Apr 2024 05:34:03 + with message-id and subject line Bug#1035733: fixed in debian-policy 4.7.0.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #1035733, regarding debian -policy: packages must not use dpkg-divert to override default systemd configuraton files to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1035733: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1035733 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: debian-policy X-Debbugs-CC: bi...@debian.org pkg-systemd-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org It has come to my attention that there is one package in Debian using dpkg-divert to mask a systemd configuration file (an udev rule). Speaking as one of the maintainers, both upstream and downstream, I find this greatly undesirable for several reasons that I will outline later. Hence I would like to propose explicitly mentioning that dpkg- divert must not be used for systemd configuration files (units, rules, etc), and instead the supported workflow (drop-ins, masking, etc) must be used, both by packages and administrators. This is already standard practice, and again there is only one instance that needs correcting as far as I understand, and I have already provided a bug and a MR for that [1][2]. So the impact of this policy change should be minimal, and it's mostly to ensure more such instances are accidentally added in the future. I have a draft policy update, that adds a paragraph to the dpkg-divert section of the policy. It is attached here, and also available on Salsa on my fork [3]. The full reasoning below is what I provided on the MR for the one existing instance, and I'll copy it mostly unchanged as I hope it's exhaustive enough. It uses the one existing instance I found as concrete example. This is not intended to single out the maintainer or assign blame, but merely to illustrate the point with a concrete and real use case. Quoting from the MR: One of the main goals behind the systemd (and its udev component) project is to unify how the low-level userspace components of a Linux distro work, so that the exact same mechanisms, patterns, behaviours and interfaces apply to a multitude of use cases, implementations and tools. A core part of this is the configuration system. The configuration system supports a complex schema of main contents, overrides, drop-ins, masking and aliasing. This system is used and understood by all systemd components, across all Linux distributions, with the same interface, look and feel, so that users can feel at home and know how to work the system regardless of the vendor, and so that programs can rely on a stable and common interface that doesn't have to be endlessly customized depending on which vendor or distribution it is used by. The concept of 'masking' a configuration is well understood, ubiquitous and fully supported by all the tooling, including in input _and_ output, and logging, and so on. By using the supported mechanism for masking we ensure that there are no surprises for users, coders and vendors. When an unsupported masking mechanism is used, as in this case, the fact that the original item is masked is completely hidden to the systemd components, and thus to the interface provided to the user. This causes at best confusion and misunderstanding, and at worst bugs that will inevitably fall on the systemd maintainers, causing increased workload for an already over stretched team. A simple and obvious example of what I am referring to is already included in the git commit for this change. Consider what happens when udev parses the vanilla configuration (ie: without amazon-ec2-utils installed): $ udevadm test /dev/cdrom 2>&1 | grep 60-cdrom_id Reading rules file: /lib/udev/rules.d/60-cdrom_id.rules The user/system/log is clearly notified that the file is parsed, there are no errors, and thus is used. Now consider what happens when the current version of amazon-ec2-utils is installed: $ udevadm test /dev/cdrom 2>&1 | grep 60-cdrom_id Reading rules file: /lib/udev/rules.d/60-cdrom_id.rules It looks exactly the same. But something extremely different is actually happening, in fact the opposite! The file is empty, so the vanilla rule is effectively masked, but nothing and nobody is notified of this very important fact when udev is running. One would have to query dpkg-divert to figure this out, but this is something that even someone like me, who can reasonably consider myself a proficient Debian user, would not think of looking at. Now finally consider what happens if am
Bug#984511: marked as done (debian-policy: please clarify how archive areas can be combined in source packages)
Your message dated Sun, 07 Apr 2024 05:34:03 + with message-id and subject line Bug#994008: fixed in debian-policy 4.7.0.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #994008, regarding debian-policy: please clarify how archive areas can be combined in source packages to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 994008: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994008 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- 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. However, Ansgar tells me this is not actually true. Some of the terms in use here are overloaded, so please be careful. At the dpkg level, there is a Section field in d/control and in binary package metadata. Despite its name, this field actually combines the user-facing section (admin, games, libdevel and so on) and the archive area (main, contrib or non-free). In this mail I will use Section (titlecase) for the field, and section (lower-case) for the user-facing section. .dsc files do not include a Section field, but both source and binary packages have to exist in an archive area, so when accepting uploaded packages the archive software has to guess which archive area the source package ought to be in, based on the Section of the various binary packages in its Package-List field. The Section in the first stanza of d/control is a default for all binary packages that do not explicitly specify their Section, but is not copied into the .dsc file - although perhaps it should be? My understanding is that the ftp team allows the following situations: * A source package builds binary packages that are all in main (e.g. dpkg). The source package is Free and gets put in main. Example d/control (simplified down to just the relevant parts): Source: dpkg # this implicitly means archive area: main, section: admin Section: admin Package: dpkg Package: dpkg-dev # this implicitly means archive area: main, section: utils Section: utils * A source package builds binary packages that are all in contrib (e.g. src:game-data-packager). The source package is Free, and gets put in contrib too. Example d/control (simplified down to just the relevant parts): Source: game-data-packager # this means archive area: contrib, section: games Section: contrib/games Package: game-data-packager Package: quake * A source package builds binary packages that are all in non-free (e.g. src:steam). The source package is at least partially non-Free and gets put in non-free. Example d/control (simplified down to just the relevant parts): Source: steam # this means archive area: non-free, section: games Section: non-free/games Package: steam Package: steam-devices * A source package builds a mixture of binary packages that are suitable for main and binary packages suitable for contrib (e.g. src:cpl-plugin-amber, where cpl-plugin-amber-calib is contrib and the rest is in main). The source package is Free, even though some of its binary packages have external and/or non-free dependencies, so it can be put in main. Example d/control (simplified down to just the relevant parts): Source: cpl-plugin-amber # this implicitly means archive area: main, section: science Section: science Package: cpl-plugin-amber Package: cpl-plugin-amber-calib # this means archive area: contrib, section: science Section: contrib/science In particular, a source package is not allowed to combine non-free binary packages with main or contrib binary packages: the important parts of steam-devices.deb are actually Free (MIT-licensed), but if I wanted to put those in main, I would have to split the source package into an entirely Free part to build steam-devices.deb, and a non-Free part to build steam.deb. >From the Policy text, it is not clear that the last one of those four situations (as used in cpl-plugin-amber) is allowed. It would be useful for Policy to explicitly say that it is, so that it's available as a tool for maintainers to use when appropriate. Questions for the ftp team: * Is my understanding of this correct? * Are source packages like cpl-plugin-amber, that mix main and contrib binary packages, considered to be something that is entirely valid and should be used whenever it is the closest representation of real
Bug#970234: marked as done (consider dropping "No hard links in source packages")
Your message dated Sun, 07 Apr 2024 05:34:03 + with message-id and subject line Bug#970234: fixed in debian-policy 4.7.0.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #970234, regarding consider dropping "No hard links in source packages" to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 970234: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=970234 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: debian-policy Version: 4.5.0.3 Severity: wishlist Jakub stumbled into the "No hard links in source packages" requirement added around 1996 and couldn't make sense of it. Neither could Christoph nor myself. tar does support hard links just fine. lintian does not check this property. sugar-log-activity/38 is an example package violating the property. It is shipped in buster and technically rc-buggy though no bug is filed about it. I believe that the requriement needs a rationale. Failing that, it should be dropped. Helmut --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Source: debian-policy Source-Version: 4.7.0.0 Done: Sean Whitton We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of debian-policy, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive. A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to 970...@bugs.debian.org, and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. Sean Whitton (supplier of updated debian-policy package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 13:08:55 +0800 Source: debian-policy Architecture: source Version: 4.7.0.0 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian Policy Editors Changed-By: Sean Whitton Closes: 963524 968226 970234 994008 1029211 1035733 1039102 1068192 Changes: debian-policy (4.7.0.0) unstable; urgency=medium . [ Sean Whitton ] * Policy: Prefer native overriding mechanisms to diversions & alternatives Wording: Luca Boccassi Seconded: Sean Whitton Seconded: Russ Allbery Seconded: Holger Levsen Closes: #1035733 * Policy: Improve alternative build dependency discussion Wording: Russ Allbery Seconded: Wouter Verhelst Seconded: Sean Whitton Closes: #968226 * Policy: No network access for required targets for contrib & non-free Wording: Aurelien Jarno Seconded: Sam Hartman Seconded: Tobias Frost Seconded: Holger Levsen Closes: #1068192 . [ Russ Allbery ] * Policy: Add mention of the new non-free-firmware archive area Wording: Gunnar Wolf Seconded: Holger Levsen Seconded: Russ Allbery Closes: #1029211 * Policy: Source packages in main may build binary packages in contrib Wording: Simon McVittie Seconded: Holger Levsen Seconded: Russ Allbery Closes: #994008 * Policy: Allow hard links in source packages Wording: Russ Allbery Seconded: Helmut Grohne Seconded: Guillem Jover Closes: #970234 * Policy: Binary and Description fields may be absent in .changes Wording: Russ Allbery Seconded: Sam Hartman Seconded: Guillem Jover Closes: #963524 * Policy: systemd units are required to start and stop system services Wording: Luca Boccassi Wording: Russ Allbery Seconded: Luca Boccassi Seconded: Sam Hartman Closes: #1039102 Checksums-Sha1: cceb560f2e75c99e38aade67c89ee61e09e7a3e5 2136 debian-policy_4.7.0.0.dsc fb76348525ee83aa8b75eee50d1d0d166997ca5d 560352 debian-policy_4.7.0.0.tar.xz Checksums-Sha256: 57cf3ee833405240396b40cc9ee65568c09cb9bd421c8cfdec1ff03cba287319 2136 debian-policy_4.7.0.0.dsc cc53cfec06db76e6a26dd61b6f4f8015e95637fc67d5715c54487507ee113a40 560352 debian-policy_4.7.0.0.tar.xz Files: ab2b8b895ec9092a064a72cf0665c47a 2136 doc optional debian-policy_4.7.0.0.dsc 2f658f4169866f3db703cf78e96dcb9a 560352 doc optional debian-policy_4.7.0.0.tar.xz -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEm5FwB64DDjbk/CSLaVt65L8GYkAFAmYSLcMACgkQaVt65L8G YkCyJg//cXSHspKUQgje2QUDvo+FMIEWjg8sYUUHhdnq6xLHlc8fxcID1V1kH7F0 bGSzmfJyBTbALWDTmrr9O5dIkSy7Fe4D+qY95r0wuWJ0F2GNyL4sYyBUMwdtevgj ZoDoO69R/Z9ae54ouFMNg7q8gioWM2HZyvz7
Bug#994008: marked as done (debian-policy: Clarify relationship between source and binary packages' archive areas)
Your message dated Sun, 07 Apr 2024 05:34:03 + with message-id and subject line Bug#994008: fixed in debian-policy 4.7.0.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #994008, regarding debian-policy: Clarify relationship between source and binary packages' archive areas to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 994008: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994008 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: debian-policy Version: 4.6.0.1 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch X-Debbugs-Cc: ftpmas...@debian.org If you have an upstream project consisting of Free source code with a mixture of Free and non-Free dependencies, it isn't currently clear how that should be packaged. For example, if gnome-software added a steam plugin that was itself Free Software, but had Depends: steam, then it would be in this situation: the program and the flatpak and snap plugins would still be suitable for main, but the steam plugin would need to go in contrib. Based on the precedent seen in the bumblebee package, I believe the ftp team's intention is that packages like this are allowed to be a single source package in main, which builds binary packages for main and contrib, even though this means the contrib binary packages don't match their source package's archive area. I think I remember talking to a ftp team member about this in person and coming to the conclusion that there are good reasons for none of the other possible source/binary archive area mismatches to be allowed. In the form of a table, the allowed source/binary combinations are: |binary | | main contrib non-free | -|-| main | yesyes - | source contrib | - yes - | non-free | - - yes | ftp team: is this correct? If it is, I attach proposed patches for Policy. Their commit messages attempt to capture the rationale for why the other situations are not allowed; corrections/clarifications welcome. Thanks, smcv >From eda0f325301bd514e5ac94328dd4b5a01960634a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Simon McVittie Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 15:43:20 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] archive: Point out that mixed main/contrib source packages can exist Most source packages produce only binary packages in the same archive area, but a few source packages in main (such as bumblebee) produce a mixture of main and contrib binary packages. If an upstream project is in this situation (for example a program with optional plugins that have non-free dependencies) it isn't entirely obvious how to package it; clarify that a single source package in main is considered to be appropriate in this case, as long as no non-free build-dependencies are required. Signed-off-by: Simon McVittie --- policy/ch-archive.rst | 13 + 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) diff --git a/policy/ch-archive.rst b/policy/ch-archive.rst index ab04261..7829601 100644 --- a/policy/ch-archive.rst +++ b/policy/ch-archive.rst @@ -130,6 +130,19 @@ In addition, the packages in *main* - must meet all policy requirements presented in this manual. +If a source package is in the *main* archive area, then each of the +binary packages that it produces must be in either the *main* or *contrib* +archive area. Each binary package's archive area is indicated by its +``Section`` field: see :ref:`s-subsections`. + +When a *main* source package has a mixture of *main* and *contrib* +binary packages, the source package and the *main* binary packages must +follow the requirements for *main* packages, but the *contrib* binary +packages may follow the weaker requirements for *contrib* packages. +In particular, build-dependencies outside *main* are not allowed in +these source packages, but the *contrib* binary packages may have runtime +dependencies outside *main*. + .. _s-contrib: The contrib archive area -- 2.33.0 >From 0b855a4a0dbb348269388985fc45c7887376a245 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Simon McVittie Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 15:53:20 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] archive: Clarify binaries produced by contrib and non-free source A source package outside main cannot produce main binary packages, because we want main to be self-contained: if you download all main source packages, that should give you the source code of all main binary packages. A source package in contrib cannot produce non-free binary packages, because by definition contrib only contains free software (with no
Bug#963524: marked as done (debian-policy: Binary and Description fields not mandatory in .changes on source-only uploads)
Your message dated Sun, 07 Apr 2024 05:34:03 + with message-id and subject line Bug#963524: fixed in debian-policy 4.7.0.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #963524, regarding debian-policy: Binary and Description fields not mandatory in .changes on source-only uploads to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 963524: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=963524 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: dpkg Severity: normal X-Debbugs-CC: debian-lint-ma...@lists.debian.org Hi Guillem, Starting with an upcoming release, Lintian will check for the presence of required and recommended fields in various packaging control files. Our methods are probably not perfect, but it was brought to my attention that 'dpkg-buildpackage -S' produces *.changes files without 'Binary' and 'Description' fields. Policy 5.5 states that both fields are mandatory. [1] [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#debian-changes-files-changes You may be able to find details about an example (by building Lintian) at the link below. https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/commit/54a3c2437eadb0684f6762a81a82163f36562d3e#note_176583 Please note that I filed this bug with normal severity, even though as a policy violation, it should be serious. I did so because I believe the policy is at least partially in error (with respect to the 'Binary' field). This issue may be loosely related to your pending Bug#956321 but is clearly a different issue. Thank you for your hard work on dpkg and friends. Kind regards Felix Lechner --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Source: debian-policy Source-Version: 4.7.0.0 Done: Sean Whitton We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of debian-policy, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive. A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to 963...@bugs.debian.org, and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. Sean Whitton (supplier of updated debian-policy package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 13:08:55 +0800 Source: debian-policy Architecture: source Version: 4.7.0.0 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian Policy Editors Changed-By: Sean Whitton Closes: 963524 968226 970234 994008 1029211 1035733 1039102 1068192 Changes: debian-policy (4.7.0.0) unstable; urgency=medium . [ Sean Whitton ] * Policy: Prefer native overriding mechanisms to diversions & alternatives Wording: Luca Boccassi Seconded: Sean Whitton Seconded: Russ Allbery Seconded: Holger Levsen Closes: #1035733 * Policy: Improve alternative build dependency discussion Wording: Russ Allbery Seconded: Wouter Verhelst Seconded: Sean Whitton Closes: #968226 * Policy: No network access for required targets for contrib & non-free Wording: Aurelien Jarno Seconded: Sam Hartman Seconded: Tobias Frost Seconded: Holger Levsen Closes: #1068192 . [ Russ Allbery ] * Policy: Add mention of the new non-free-firmware archive area Wording: Gunnar Wolf Seconded: Holger Levsen Seconded: Russ Allbery Closes: #1029211 * Policy: Source packages in main may build binary packages in contrib Wording: Simon McVittie Seconded: Holger Levsen Seconded: Russ Allbery Closes: #994008 * Policy: Allow hard links in source packages Wording: Russ Allbery Seconded: Helmut Grohne Seconded: Guillem Jover Closes: #970234 * Policy: Binary and Description fields may be absent in .changes Wording: Russ Allbery Seconded: Sam Hartman Seconded: Guillem Jover Closes: #963524 * Policy: systemd units are required to start and stop system services Wording: Luca Boccassi Wording: Russ Allbery Seconded: Luca Boccassi Seconded: Sam Hartman Closes: #1039102 Checksums-Sha1: cceb560f2e75c99e38aade67c89ee61e09e7a3e5 2136 debian-policy_4.7.0.0.dsc fb76348525ee83aa8b75eee50d1d0d166997ca5d 560352 debian-policy_4.7.0.0.tar.xz Checksum
Bug#1068192: marked as done (debian-policy: extend forbidden network access to contrib and non-free)
Your message dated Sun, 07 Apr 2024 05:34:04 + with message-id and subject line Bug#1068192: fixed in debian-policy 4.7.0.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #1068192, regarding debian-policy: extend forbidden network access to contrib and non-free to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1068192: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1068192 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: debian-policy Version: 4.6.2.1 Severity: normal X-Debbugs-Cc: d...@debian.org, wb-t...@buildd.debian.org Control: affects -1 buildd.debian.org Hi, The debian policy, section 4.9, forbids network access for packages in the main archive, which implicitly means they are authorized for packages in contrib and non-free (and non-free-firmware once #1029211 is fixed). This gives constraints on the build daemons infrastructure and also brings some security concerns. Would it be possible to extend this restriction to all archives? Regards, Aurelien --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Source: debian-policy Source-Version: 4.7.0.0 Done: Sean Whitton We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of debian-policy, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive. A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to 1068...@bugs.debian.org, and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. Sean Whitton (supplier of updated debian-policy package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 13:08:55 +0800 Source: debian-policy Architecture: source Version: 4.7.0.0 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian Policy Editors Changed-By: Sean Whitton Closes: 963524 968226 970234 994008 1029211 1035733 1039102 1068192 Changes: debian-policy (4.7.0.0) unstable; urgency=medium . [ Sean Whitton ] * Policy: Prefer native overriding mechanisms to diversions & alternatives Wording: Luca Boccassi Seconded: Sean Whitton Seconded: Russ Allbery Seconded: Holger Levsen Closes: #1035733 * Policy: Improve alternative build dependency discussion Wording: Russ Allbery Seconded: Wouter Verhelst Seconded: Sean Whitton Closes: #968226 * Policy: No network access for required targets for contrib & non-free Wording: Aurelien Jarno Seconded: Sam Hartman Seconded: Tobias Frost Seconded: Holger Levsen Closes: #1068192 . [ Russ Allbery ] * Policy: Add mention of the new non-free-firmware archive area Wording: Gunnar Wolf Seconded: Holger Levsen Seconded: Russ Allbery Closes: #1029211 * Policy: Source packages in main may build binary packages in contrib Wording: Simon McVittie Seconded: Holger Levsen Seconded: Russ Allbery Closes: #994008 * Policy: Allow hard links in source packages Wording: Russ Allbery Seconded: Helmut Grohne Seconded: Guillem Jover Closes: #970234 * Policy: Binary and Description fields may be absent in .changes Wording: Russ Allbery Seconded: Sam Hartman Seconded: Guillem Jover Closes: #963524 * Policy: systemd units are required to start and stop system services Wording: Luca Boccassi Wording: Russ Allbery Seconded: Luca Boccassi Seconded: Sam Hartman Closes: #1039102 Checksums-Sha1: cceb560f2e75c99e38aade67c89ee61e09e7a3e5 2136 debian-policy_4.7.0.0.dsc fb76348525ee83aa8b75eee50d1d0d166997ca5d 560352 debian-policy_4.7.0.0.tar.xz Checksums-Sha256: 57cf3ee833405240396b40cc9ee65568c09cb9bd421c8cfdec1ff03cba287319 2136 debian-policy_4.7.0.0.dsc cc53cfec06db76e6a26dd61b6f4f8015e95637fc67d5715c54487507ee113a40 560352 debian-policy_4.7.0.0.tar.xz Files: ab2b8b895ec9092a064a72cf0665c47a 2136 doc optional debian-policy_4.7.0.0.dsc 2f658f4169866f3db703cf78e96dcb9a 560352 doc optional debian-policy_4.7.0.0.tar.xz -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEm5FwB64DDjbk/CSLaVt65L8GYkAFAmYSLcMACgkQaVt65L8G YkCyJg//cXSHspKUQgje2QUDvo+FMIEWjg8sYUUHhdnq6xLHlc8fxcID1V1kH7F0 bGSzmfJyBTbALWDTmrr9O5dIkSy7Fe4D+qY95r0wuWJ0F2GNyL4sYyBUMwdtevgj
Bug#968226: marked as done (Move documentation of Build-Depends alternative selection out of footnote)
Your message dated Sun, 07 Apr 2024 05:34:03 + with message-id and subject line Bug#968226: fixed in debian-policy 4.7.0.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #968226, regarding Move documentation of Build-Depends alternative selection out of footnote to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 968226: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=968226 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: debian-policy On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 06:28:50PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote: > I understand what you're saying, and indeed trying to encode > "Build-Depends-If-Available: foo" as "Build-Depends: foo | something" > is a bad idea from the get-go. After all, foo can have three states on > an architecture: installable, unavailable, or > available-but-uninstallable-for-some-reason. And we want different > behaviour in the three cases: build with it, build without it, or > delay-building-until-installable. And we can't shoehorn those three > things into the binary logic of "foo | something". Exactly, and therein lies the problem. Buildd used to consider alternative build-dependencies, and it caused a never-ending stream of package transition entanglements, because the delay-building-until-installable thing never happened, which meant that every rebuild of something to solve a problem would have to either be timed very well, or would be likely to be playing a roulette game of "will the rebuild solve all problems or create yet even more". -policy: this is a question that has come up before (https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/12/msg00470.html is another example that springs to mind, but I'm pretty sure there are more), so I think we should document in Policy that a) buildd only looks at the first dependency in alternative build-dependencies, and b) why this is the case. Suggestion: ---8<--- Note that sbuild, the program which builds packages on each of Debian's architectures, only considers the first alternative for any declared element in the Build-Depends: header, after removing alternatives with architecture restrictions that don't apply to the architecture on which the package is building. All other alternatives are ignored by sbuild. This is done so that package dependencies are predictable; previously, sbuild would consider alternative dependencies, but it made binary package dependencies change based on whether a particular package happened to be installable on unstable at the time of a package rebuild. These changes were unpredictable, and made handling transitions harder than they needed to be. --->8--- Not sure in which section to place this though. Thoughts? -- To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Source: debian-policy Source-Version: 4.7.0.0 Done: Sean Whitton We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of debian-policy, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive. A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to 968...@bugs.debian.org, and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. Sean Whitton (supplier of updated debian-policy package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 13:08:55 +0800 Source: debian-policy Architecture: source Version: 4.7.0.0 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian Policy Editors Changed-By: Sean Whitton Closes: 963524 968226 970234 994008 1029211 1035733 1039102 1068192 Changes: debian-policy (4.7.0.0) unstable; urgency=medium . [ Sean Whitton ] * Policy: Prefer native overriding mechanisms to diversions & alternatives Wording: Luca Boccassi Seconded: Sean Whitton Seconded: Russ Allbery Seconded: Holger Levsen Closes: #1035733 * Policy: Improve alternative build dependency discussion Wording: Russ Allbery Seconded: Wouter Verhelst Seconded: Sean Whitton Closes: #968226 * Policy: No network access for required targets for contrib & non-free Wo
Bug#1029211: marked as done (debian-policy: Add mention of the new non-free-firmware archive area)
Your message dated Sun, 07 Apr 2024 05:34:03 + with message-id and subject line Bug#1029211: fixed in debian-policy 4.7.0.0 has caused the Debian Bug report #1029211, regarding debian-policy: Add mention of the new non-free-firmware archive area to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1029211: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1029211 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: debian-policy Version: 4.6.2.0 Severity: normal Tags: patch It has been four months since the General Resolution 2022/vote_003 was voted¹, but it has not yet been completely adopted. The archive area was created and at least a package was uploaded to it in October, but it has not seen further movement. Two days ago, a call to action for moving packages was sent by Cyril Brulebois², and I just sent a mail checking for other places where it should be included³. ¹ https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_003 ² https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2023/01/msg00150.html ³ https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2023/01/msg00018.html To my surprise, the non-free-firmware archive area has not yet been discussed for inclusion in the Policy. I am (now!) aware there is a clear process to get changes included in the Policy, but this is the first time I do this, so please excuse me for jumping all the way to "State D: Wording proposed" (of course, my words can be checked and improved, particularly given I'm not a native English speaker). ⁴ https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ap-process.html I am suggesting the following patch, which I'm attaching to this bug report, and also uploaded them to my fork of debian-policy in Salsa: https://salsa.debian.org/gwolf/policy/-/commit/79c58a40065c01f56850f86e883d8fa482c7cca0 Thank you very much for considering this! -- System Information: Debian Release: bookworm/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 6.0.0-6-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU threads; PREEMPT) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_US:en Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled debian-policy depends on no packages. Versions of packages debian-policy recommends: ii libjs-sphinxdoc 5.3.0-3 Versions of packages debian-policy suggests: pn doc-base -- no debconf information diff --git a/policy/ch-archive.rst b/policy/ch-archive.rst index ab04261..15b9343 100644 --- a/policy/ch-archive.rst +++ b/policy/ch-archive.rst @@ -24,11 +24,11 @@ The aims of this are: The *main* archive area forms the *Debian distribution*. -Packages in the other archive areas (``contrib``, ``non-free``) are not -considered to be part of the Debian distribution, although we support -their use and provide infrastructure for them (such as our bug-tracking -system and mailing lists). This Debian Policy Manual applies to these -packages as well. +Packages in the other archive areas (``non-free-firmware``, +``contrib``, ``non-free``) are not considered to be part of the Debian +distribution, although we support their use and provide infrastructure +for them (such as our bug-tracking system and mailing lists). This +Debian Policy Manual applies to these packages as well. .. _s-dfsg: @@ -130,6 +130,27 @@ In addition, the packages in *main* - must meet all policy requirements presented in this manual. +.. _s-non-free-firmware: + +The non-free-firmware archive area +~~ + +The *non-free-firmware* archive area contains packages providing +firmware needed to initialize, use or keep updated hardware required +by our users, typically necessary for important functions to be +available (i.e. wireless network connectivity) or for fixing security +defects in hardware (i.e. CPU microcode updates). Packages in this +archive may not comply with all of the policy requirements in this +manual due to lack of source code availability, restrictions on +modification or other limitations. + +Packages in *non-free-firmware* + +- must not be so buggy that we refuse to support them, and + + - must meet all policy requiremens presented in this manual that it +is possible for them to meet. + .. _s-contrib: The contrib archive area @@ -261,8 +282,8 @@ prohibited" and "distribution restricted". Sections -The packages in the archive areas *main*, *contrib* and *non-free* are -grouped further into *sections* to simplify handling. +The packages in the archive areas *main*, *non
Processed: issue with Debian-style html theme for sphinx-based documents
Processing control commands: > reassign 1064593 www.debian.org Bug #1064593 [debian-policy] debian-policy: missing static resources for www.debian.org policy page Bug reassigned from package 'debian-policy' to 'www.debian.org'. No longer marked as found in versions debian-policy/4.6.2.1. Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #1064593 to the same values previously set -- 1064593: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1064593 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: retitle 1068192 to debian-policy: extend forbidden network access to contrib and non-free
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > retitle 1068192 debian-policy: extend forbidden network access to contrib and > non-free Bug #1068192 [debian-policy] debian-policy: extended forbidden network access to contrib and non-free Changed Bug title to 'debian-policy: extend forbidden network access to contrib and non-free' from 'debian-policy: extended forbidden network access to contrib and non-free'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 1068192: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1068192 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: debian-policy: extended forbidden network access to contrib and non-free
Processing control commands: > affects -1 buildd.debian.org Bug #1068192 [debian-policy] debian-policy: extended forbidden network access to contrib and non-free Added indication that 1068192 affects buildd.debian.org -- 1068192: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1068192 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#915583: marked as done (debian-policy: More attractive sphinx theme, please)
Your message dated Sat, 24 Feb 2024 13:19:24 + with message-id and subject line Bug#915583: fixed in debian-policy 4.6.2.1 has caused the Debian Bug report #915583, regarding debian-policy: More attractive sphinx theme, please to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 915583: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=915583 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- package: debian-policy severity: wishlist Hi, Maybe more eye-candy theme (see https://sphinx-themes.org/) is good for policy-doc and other debian docs, we can create theme for debian-policy and share between debian docs. -- Hideki Yamane --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Source: debian-policy Source-Version: 4.6.2.1 Done: Sean Whitton We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of debian-policy, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive. A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to 915...@bugs.debian.org, and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. Sean Whitton (supplier of updated debian-policy package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2024 20:39:43 +0800 Source: debian-policy Architecture: source Version: 4.6.2.1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian Policy Editors Changed-By: Sean Whitton Closes: 793499 915583 1020248 1031403 Changes: debian-policy (4.6.2.1) unstable; urgency=medium . [ Guillem Jover ] * Standardize terminology with dpkg. (Closes: #1020248) - Use 'stanza' for each section of a multi-section control file, such as the source package template control file (debian/control). - Use standardized naming for binary package control files, source package control files (.dsc), source package template control files (debian/control), and upload changes control files (.changes). - Refer to members of the control member of the .deb archive as 'package metadata'. * Update Installed-Size algorithm used by dpkg (Closes: #793499). . [ Stéphane Blondon ] * New Debian-specific Sphinx style (Closes: #915583). . [ Max-Julian Pogner ] * Fix missing quotes in dpkg-divert examples. (Closes: #1031403) Checksums-Sha1: 1ca66544071b0942fdbd0f2fc155ff98e0794349 2136 debian-policy_4.6.2.1.dsc 0194a75ba91649127927fc24df894f4c2e8740c6 554296 debian-policy_4.6.2.1.tar.xz Checksums-Sha256: fc4f8728464f039ab2ff9063d28a9538e92cb68605d980ac608689306bfc80b6 2136 debian-policy_4.6.2.1.dsc 0a69d1e25d821e6eb1e1773f4a8626ecdf2abf23ce50d0ba4e90208fd67052a3 554296 debian-policy_4.6.2.1.tar.xz Files: 9907e689604584693d5494d3133e71e0 2136 doc optional debian-policy_4.6.2.1.dsc d40f37ab7ab1b736b65844669a5baf01 554296 doc optional debian-policy_4.6.2.1.tar.xz -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEm5FwB64DDjbk/CSLaVt65L8GYkAFAmXZ48MACgkQaVt65L8G YkCORQ/8D0vQa4AKBnKAmJd8QFrjbKMqSTphLlcq2kCaXnNEtTz0mtZ4YMQd+4lh ce8J6/qOYarhkBSCvz//cb1WMDUXt4M9l0NoOMcw6rZHxzkUf315O8NLjktM0D52 /+HhdgMmE9IhzOqohNvmB/DiCogqfLQvKRswKdbr0FNIbeqv8CJAYZdatgoBIZVJ zkpub9K3EM1tY3V5aRWi6rPj5QQIE0yMF1v+MP5aQc8cyTeE3YwPH1iAOJwgSUgE CSBQqzYU1MgLVYipvVCp6at44Mpj32spUAOjXBxUGVfstR0lYzk6Q6y7nQwEb+rl eFWkmSuY5ynkNAV1H4xvS4PVPFSHQU336cuUecc3c0TSynQ9fAi8tRfPgEW1UT87 mUmj8yjy8aSslv/Yhsb6/yULIJS0np01RXI4pBaTpu6CU2oVbtHJVW+Hcc4VKC7P l5iN4CAV0wn8UqEXJPTd3TibtBlN0CbnfUIA6/ZxQq3CwI5OHp00PLPTHSoOEQe7 ZiurbnAAyI9Dlrn+lkUFMPF3ukeq6EaVelze/QMEB6BWP0ZAni7qWZKACaasuUkm f/t+pWpVyZQx7CegSi2DGRnjsLD+wi2ylYu3GDvogrNR92I+kMgYOtX/PvSgJ904 FF3zt3K0ZNcsEkso456N/3Zcbp9/iwtxC6Pwtt2aLO5CdKj4QKU= =9HMh -END PGP SIGNATURE- pgpjXLd5uLZXF.pgp Description: PGP signature --- End Message ---
Bug#793499: marked as done (debian-policy: The Installed-Size algorithm is out-of-date)
Your message dated Sat, 24 Feb 2024 13:19:24 + with message-id and subject line Bug#793499: fixed in debian-policy 4.6.2.1 has caused the Debian Bug report #793499, regarding debian-policy: The Installed-Size algorithm is out-of-date to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 793499: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=793499 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: debian-policy Version: 3.9.7.0 Severity: wishlist Hi! As discussed in the debian-policy list, the Installed-Size algorithm as implemented in dpkg-gencontrol changed due to #650077. So the current wording is out-of-sync. Please see the thread starting at <https://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2011/11/msg00079.html>, with the current implementation <https://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2015/01/msg00044.html>. Thanks, Guillem --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Source: debian-policy Source-Version: 4.6.2.1 Done: Sean Whitton We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of debian-policy, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive. A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to 793...@bugs.debian.org, and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. Sean Whitton (supplier of updated debian-policy package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2024 20:39:43 +0800 Source: debian-policy Architecture: source Version: 4.6.2.1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian Policy Editors Changed-By: Sean Whitton Closes: 793499 915583 1020248 1031403 Changes: debian-policy (4.6.2.1) unstable; urgency=medium . [ Guillem Jover ] * Standardize terminology with dpkg. (Closes: #1020248) - Use 'stanza' for each section of a multi-section control file, such as the source package template control file (debian/control). - Use standardized naming for binary package control files, source package control files (.dsc), source package template control files (debian/control), and upload changes control files (.changes). - Refer to members of the control member of the .deb archive as 'package metadata'. * Update Installed-Size algorithm used by dpkg (Closes: #793499). . [ Stéphane Blondon ] * New Debian-specific Sphinx style (Closes: #915583). . [ Max-Julian Pogner ] * Fix missing quotes in dpkg-divert examples. (Closes: #1031403) Checksums-Sha1: 1ca66544071b0942fdbd0f2fc155ff98e0794349 2136 debian-policy_4.6.2.1.dsc 0194a75ba91649127927fc24df894f4c2e8740c6 554296 debian-policy_4.6.2.1.tar.xz Checksums-Sha256: fc4f8728464f039ab2ff9063d28a9538e92cb68605d980ac608689306bfc80b6 2136 debian-policy_4.6.2.1.dsc 0a69d1e25d821e6eb1e1773f4a8626ecdf2abf23ce50d0ba4e90208fd67052a3 554296 debian-policy_4.6.2.1.tar.xz Files: 9907e689604584693d5494d3133e71e0 2136 doc optional debian-policy_4.6.2.1.dsc d40f37ab7ab1b736b65844669a5baf01 554296 doc optional debian-policy_4.6.2.1.tar.xz -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEm5FwB64DDjbk/CSLaVt65L8GYkAFAmXZ48MACgkQaVt65L8G YkCORQ/8D0vQa4AKBnKAmJd8QFrjbKMqSTphLlcq2kCaXnNEtTz0mtZ4YMQd+4lh ce8J6/qOYarhkBSCvz//cb1WMDUXt4M9l0NoOMcw6rZHxzkUf315O8NLjktM0D52 /+HhdgMmE9IhzOqohNvmB/DiCogqfLQvKRswKdbr0FNIbeqv8CJAYZdatgoBIZVJ zkpub9K3EM1tY3V5aRWi6rPj5QQIE0yMF1v+MP5aQc8cyTeE3YwPH1iAOJwgSUgE CSBQqzYU1MgLVYipvVCp6at44Mpj32spUAOjXBxUGVfstR0lYzk6Q6y7nQwEb+rl eFWkmSuY5ynkNAV1H4xvS4PVPFSHQU336cuUecc3c0TSynQ9fAi8tRfPgEW1UT87 mUmj8yjy8aSslv/Yhsb6/yULIJS0np01RXI4pBaTpu6CU2oVbtHJVW+Hcc4VKC7P l5iN4CAV0wn8UqEXJPTd3TibtBlN0CbnfUIA6/ZxQq3CwI5OHp00PLPTHSoOEQe7 ZiurbnAAyI9Dlrn+lkUFMPF3ukeq6EaVelze/QMEB6BWP0ZAni7qWZKACaasuUkm f/t+pWpVyZQx7CegSi2DGRnjsLD+wi2ylYu3GDvogrNR92I+kMgYOtX/PvSgJ904 FF3zt3K0ZNcsEkso456N/3Zcbp9/iwtxC6Pwtt2aLO5CdKj4QKU= =9HMh -END PGP SIGNATURE- pgpGehZAM21fs.pgp Description: PGP signature --- End Message ---
Bug#1031403: marked as done (debian-policy: missing quotes in sh script example in file policy/ap-pkg-diversions)
Your message dated Sat, 24 Feb 2024 13:19:24 + with message-id and subject line Bug#1031403: fixed in debian-policy 4.6.2.1 has caused the Debian Bug report #1031403, regarding debian-policy: missing quotes in sh script example in file policy/ap-pkg-diversions to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1031403: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1031403 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: debian-policy Version: 4.6.2.0 Severity: minor Tags: patch X-Debbugs-Cc: max-jul...@pogner.at Dear Maintainer, consulting the debian policy manual whether it contains suggestions how to best implement diversions (see `man dpkg-divert`), i noticed syntax errors in the provided shell script example snippets. a patch fixing these typos is attached. -- System Information: Debian Release: bookworm/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: arm64, i386 Kernel: Linux 6.1.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/12 CPU threads; PREEMPT) Kernel taint flags: TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_GB:en Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled debian-policy depends on no packages. Versions of packages debian-policy recommends: ii libjs-sphinxdoc 5.3.0-3 Versions of packages debian-policy suggests: pn doc-base >From d9769130d9da00933a19237d5b614dda5331e3e9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Max-Julian Pogner Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 16:44:23 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] FIX: missing quotes in sh script example in file policy/ap-pkg-diversions --- policy/ap-pkg-diversions.rst | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/policy/ap-pkg-diversions.rst b/policy/ap-pkg-diversions.rst index fe360d1..4b8c647 100644 --- a/policy/ap-pkg-diversions.rst +++ b/policy/ap-pkg-diversions.rst @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ upgraded: :: -if [ upgrade != "$1 ] || dpkg --compare-versions "$2" lt 1.0-2; then +if [ upgrade != "$1" ] || dpkg --compare-versions "$2" lt 1.0-2; then dpkg-divert --package smailwrapper --add --rename \ --divert /usr/sbin/smail.real /usr/sbin/smail fi @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ The postrm has to do the reverse: :: -if [ remove = "$1" -o abort-install = "$1" -o disappear = "$1 ]; then +if [ remove = "$1" -o abort-install = "$1" -o disappear = "$1" ]; then dpkg-divert --package smailwrapper --remove --rename \ --divert /usr/sbin/smail.real /usr/sbin/smail fi @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ supported): :: -if [ abort-upgrade = "$1 ] && dpkg --compare-versions "$2" lt 1.0-2; then +if [ abort-upgrade = "$1" ] && dpkg --compare-versions "$2" lt 1.0-2; then dpkg-divert --package smailwrapper --remove --rename \ --divert /usr/sbin/smail.real /usr/sbin/smail fi -- 2.39.1 --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Source: debian-policy Source-Version: 4.6.2.1 Done: Sean Whitton We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of debian-policy, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive. A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to 1031...@bugs.debian.org, and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. Sean Whitton (supplier of updated debian-policy package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2024 20:39:43 +0800 Source: debian-policy Architecture: source Version: 4.6.2.1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian Policy Editors Changed-By: Sean Whitton Closes: 793499 915583 1020248 1031403 Changes: debian-policy (4.6.2.1) unstable; urgency=medium . [ Guillem Jover ] * Standardize terminology with dpkg. (Closes: #1020248) - Use 'stanza' for each section of a multi-section control file, such as the source package template control file (debian/control). - Use standardized naming for binary package control files, sourc
Bug#1020248: marked as done (debian-policy: Clarifying nomenclature for control file names)
Your message dated Sat, 24 Feb 2024 13:19:24 + with message-id and subject line Bug#1020248: fixed in debian-policy 4.6.2.1 has caused the Debian Bug report #1020248, regarding debian-policy: Clarifying nomenclature for control file names to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1020248: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1020248 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: debian-policy Version: 4.6.1.1 Severity: wishlist Hi! This is a followup from my comment at: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=998165#43 To summarize, we have IMO confusing naming and nomenclature for the various control files and paragraphs/stanzas, and this is even confusing me when having to deal with dpkg code, so I'd like to give these more clear and unambiguous new names, and I'd very strongly prefer to agree on the same naming for Debian policy and dpkg, to avoid further and worse confusion (even though they currently do not match exactly anyway, but I'd prefer to not make it worse…). Just for reference and to give some context, I've got the following WIP branches, trying to clarify the names in documentation and in the API on, which I'll probably rework (split/merge) and reword as needed, so do not take them as anything set in stone: https://git.hadrons.org/git/debian/dpkg/dpkg.git/log/?h=next/clarify-control-filenames https://git.hadrons.org/git/debian/dpkg/dpkg.git/log/?h=next/deb822-field-types File descriptions - For example we have: * debian/control: policy → «Source package control file» dpkg → «Debian source packages' master control file» * .dsc: policy → «Debian source control file» dpkg → «Debian source packages' control file» * DEBIAN/control policy → «Binary package control files» dpkg → «Debian binary packages' master control file» These are quite confusingly close. I've been considering naming debian/control something like «Debian template source package control file», as that is used to generate both the source and binary control files. And always prefixing with Debian, so that would end up as: * debian/control: «Debian source package template control file» * .dsc: «Debian source package control file» * DEBIAN/control: «Debian binary package control file» This also removes the «master» usage in dpkg, for me for the same reasons as I covered at <https://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2021/03/msg2.html>. File contents - We have references to the various parts being called as «paragraphs», «stanza», «blocks», but this seems to be more of an issue with dpkg, as the usage in the Debian policy is quite clear and uniform now, so I'll at least try to remove the «block» usage there, stanza has the nice property of being shorter and policy already mentions that this is currently a common alias, so I might keep paragraph and stanza for now in dpkg. The other thing affecting dpkg and debian-policy is how the parts within the control files are referred to. We have for example: dpkg → «general section of control info file» «source stanza» policy → «general paragraph» dpkg → «package's section of control info file» policy → «binary package paragraphs» So, how does «source package paragraph» and «binary package paragraph» (of the «template control file») sound instead? If I've missed any other problematic nomenclature, I'm happy to discuss and update those on the dpkg side. Thanks, Guillem --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Source: debian-policy Source-Version: 4.6.2.1 Done: Sean Whitton We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of debian-policy, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive. A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to 1020...@bugs.debian.org, and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. Sean Whitton (supplier of updated debian-policy package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2024 20:39:43 +0800 Source: debian-policy Architecture: source Version: 4.6.2.1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer:
Processed: Re: Bug#915583: about html_static_path
Processing control commands: > tag -1 + pending Bug #915583 [debian-policy] debian-policy: More attractive sphinx theme, please Added tag(s) pending. -- 915583: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=915583 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Re: Bug#968226: Move documentation of Build-Depends alternative selection out of footnote
Processing control commands: > tag -1 + pending Bug #968226 [debian-policy] Move documentation of Build-Depends alternative selection out of footnote Added tag(s) pending. -- 968226: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=968226 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: severity
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > severity 1062983 minor Bug #1062983 [developers-reference] Developers Reference in A4 instead of US Letter Severity set to 'minor' from 'normal' > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 1062983: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1062983 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Re: Bug#1058589: developers-reference: please mention urgency=critical/emergency for completeness
Processing control commands:
> reopen -1
Bug #1058589 {Done: Holger Levsen }
[src:developers-reference] developers-reference: please mention
urgency=critical/emergency for completeness
Bug reopened
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #1058589 to the same values
previously set
> reassign -1 debian-policy
Bug #1058589 [src:developers-reference] developers-reference: please mention
urgency=critical/emergency for completeness
Bug reassigned from package 'src:developers-reference' to 'debian-policy'.
Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #1058589 to the same values
previously set
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #1058589 to the same values
previously set
> retitle -1 please stop mentioning urgency=critical
Bug #1058589 [debian-policy] developers-reference: please mention
urgency=critical/emergency for completeness
Changed Bug title to 'please stop mentioning urgency=critical' from
'developers-reference: please mention urgency=critical/emergency for
completeness'.
--
1058589: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1058589
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1058589: marked as done (developers-reference: please mention urgency=critical/emergency for completeness)
Your message dated Wed, 13 Dec 2023 14:19:14 + with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#1058589: developers-reference: please mention urgency=critical/emergency for completeness has caused the Debian Bug report #1058589, regarding developers-reference: please mention urgency=critical/emergency for completeness to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1058589: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1058589 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Source: developers-reference Severity: normal Hi, > 6.3.2. Selecting the upload urgency mentions only high, medum and low urgency values. Britney also supports critical and emergency. These should be documented as well. Something like: - The delays are currently 2, 5 or 10 days, depending on the urgency (high, medium or low). + The delays are currently 0, 2, 5 or 10 days, depending on the urgency: critical/emergency, high, medium or low respectively. Where emergency is simply an alias for critical. Thanks, --Daniel --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- control: tags -1 + wontfix thanks On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 01:55:21PM +0100, Daniel Gröber wrote: > > 6.3.2. Selecting the upload urgency > mentions only high, medum and low urgency values. Britney also > supports critical and emergency. These should be documented as well. thanks for filing this bug report, even with a patch, basically! I'm sorry I still closing this as documenting those severities has no practical benefit, and in fact might confuse people thinking using those severities would be encouraged or useful, which is both not the case. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ Reporter: You're the first person ever to win two Olympic tennis gold medals. That's an extraordinary feat, isn't it? Andy Murray: I think Venus and Serena have won about four each. signature.asc Description: PGP signature --- End Message ---
Processed: reassign 1000771 to debian-policy
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > reassign 1000771 debian-policy Bug #1000771 [www.debian.org] missing Files-Excluded in packaging-manuals/copyright-format Bug reassigned from package 'www.debian.org' to 'debian-policy'. Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #1000771 to the same values previously set Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #1000771 to the same values previously set > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 1000771: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1000771 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Re: Bug#1053305 Fw: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ examples suffer escape damage
Processing control commands: > tags -1 + patch Bug #1053305 [debian-policy] Fw: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ examples suffer escape damage Added tag(s) patch. -- 1053305: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1053305 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: tagging 567033
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 567033 - moreinfo + wontfix
Bug #567033 {Done: Sean Whitton } [debian-policy]
Decide if we should continue recommending /usr/games
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.
Bug #567033 {Done: Sean Whitton } [debian-policy]
Decide if we should continue recommending /usr/games
Added tag(s) wontfix.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
567033: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=567033
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#567033: marked as done (Decide if we should continue recommending /usr/games)
Your message dated Wed, 20 Sep 2023 10:04:22 +0100 with message-id <87o7hxkyg9@melete.silentflame.com> and subject line Re: Bug#567033: Decide if we should continue recommending /usr/games has caused the Debian Bug report #567033, regarding Decide if we should continue recommending /usr/games to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 567033: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=567033 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: debhelper Version: 7.4.11 Severity: wishlist AFAICS dh is designed to automate as much as possible. It would be nice if binaries were automatically installed to /usr/games if the Section in debian/control is "games". Cheers, Moritz -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-trunk-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.ISO-8859-15@euro (charmap=ISO-8859-15) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Versions of packages debhelper depends on: ii binutils 2.20-4 The GNU assembler, linker and bina ii dpkg-dev 1.15.5.5 Debian package development tools ii file 5.03-5 Determines file type using "magic" ii html2text 1.3.2a-14 advanced HTML to text converter ii man-db2.5.6-4on-line manual pager ii perl 5.10.1-8 Larry Wall's Practical Extraction ii perl-base 5.10.1-8 minimal Perl system ii po-debconf1.0.16 tool for managing templates file t debhelper recommends no packages. Versions of packages debhelper suggests: ii dh-make 0.50 tool that converts source archives -- no debconf information --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- control: tag -1 + wontfix Hello, On Mon 11 Sep 2023 at 11:25am -07, Russ Allbery wrote: > Thanks, Simon and Bill. I had forgotten about that point even though > it has come up before (just not in this bug). I agree that's a more > compelling argument for keeping /usr/games. I'm going to go ahead and close this discussion as I don't think that we have consensus for making this change. Let's keep /usr/games for now. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature --- End Message ---
Processed: Re: Bug#1051371: Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters
Processing control commands: > unblock 1051371 by 1050001 Bug #1051371 [debian-policy] Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters 1051371 was not blocked by any bugs. 1051371 was not blocking any bugs. Removed blocking bug(s) of 1051371: 1050001 -- 1051371: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1051371 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Re: Bug#1051371: Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters
Processing control commands: > unblock 1051371 by 1050001 Bug #1051371 [debian-policy] Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters 1051371 was blocked by: 1050001 1051371 was not blocking any bugs. Removed blocking bug(s) of 1051371: 1050001 -- 1050001: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1050001 1051371: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1051371 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Re: Bug#1051371: Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters
Processing control commands: > block 1051371 by 1050001 Bug #1051371 [debian-policy] Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters 1051371 was blocked by: 1050001 1051371 was not blocking any bugs. Ignoring request to alter blocking bugs of bug #1051371 to the same blocks previously set -- 1051371: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1051371 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Re: Bug#1051371: Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters
Processing control commands: > block 1051371 by 1050001 Bug #1051371 [debian-policy] Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters 1051371 was not blocked by any bugs. 1051371 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 1051371: 1050001 -- 1050001: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1050001 1051371: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1051371 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Re: Bug#1051371: Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters
Processing control commands: > retitle -1 Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters Bug #1051371 [debian-policy] debian-policy: stop referring to specific paths in scripts shebang examples Changed Bug title to 'Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters' from 'debian-policy: stop referring to specific paths in scripts shebang examples'. -- 1051371: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1051371 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 793499 ...
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' > usertags 793499 = normative Usertags were: normative proposal. Usertags are now: normative. > tags 793499 = patch Bug #793499 [debian-policy] debian-policy: The Installed-Size algorithm is out-of-date Added tag(s) patch. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 793499: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=793499 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Re: Bug#872587: Document the Protected field
Processing control commands: > retitle -1 Document the Protected field Bug #872587 [debian-policy] debian-policy: please document "Important: yes" Changed Bug title to 'Document the Protected field' from 'debian-policy: please document "Important: yes"'. -- 872587: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=872587 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, tagging 991984
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 991984 = wontfix
Bug #991984 {Done: Russ Allbery } [debian-policy] Please
document minimal environment variable needed for sensible-utils
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
991984: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=991984
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 1039102 ...
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' > usertags 1039102 = normative Usertags were: normative. Usertags are now: normative. > tags 1039102 = pending Bug #1039102 [debian-policy] debian-policy: make systemd units mandatory for packages shipping system services Added tag(s) pending; removed tag(s) patch. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 1039102: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1039102 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 963524 ...
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' > usertags 963524 = normative Usertags were: normative. Usertags are now: normative. > tags 963524 = pending Bug #963524 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Binary and Description fields not mandatory in .changes on source-only uploads Added tag(s) pending; removed tag(s) patch. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 963524: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=963524 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 945269 ...
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' > usertags 945269 = normative Usertags were: normative proposal. Usertags are now: normative. > tags 945269 = patch Bug #945269 [debian-policy] debian-policy: packages should use tmpfiles.d(5) to create directories below /var Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #945269 to the same tags previously set > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 945269: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=945269 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 970234 ...
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' > usertags 970234 = normative Usertags were: normative. Usertags are now: normative. > tags 970234 = pending Bug #970234 [debian-policy] consider dropping "No hard links in source packages" Added tag(s) pending; removed tag(s) patch. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 970234: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=970234 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#877697: marked as done (debian-policy: discourage using all 4 digits numbers in Standards-Version)
Your message dated Sun, 10 Sep 2023 16:26:20 -0700 with message-id <87y1hdtxsz@hope.eyrie.org> and subject line Re: Bug#877697: debian-policy: discourage using all 4 digits numbers in Standards-Version has caused the Debian Bug report #877697, regarding debian-policy: discourage using all 4 digits numbers in Standards-Version to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 877697: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=877697 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: debian-policy Version: 4.1.1.0 Policy § 5.6.11, after describing the meaning of the digits in the policy version, reads: | Thus only the first three components of the policy version are | significant in the Standards-Version control field, and so either | these three components or all four components may be specified. [5] Now, I've only got the impressions that packages should avoid using the 4th digit in their Standards-Version field, as that number has no meaning when it comes to normative stuff. I've seen on IRC/MLs all kind of comments saying that the 4th digit should be avoided, and most packages avoid it indeed, but this wording in the policy makes me feel like it's pretty much the same. -- 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 --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Mattia Rizzolo writes: > Policy § 5.6.11, after describing the meaning of the digits in the > policy version, reads: > | Thus only the first three components of the policy version are > | significant in the Standards-Version control field, and so either > | these three components or all four components may be specified. [5] > Now, I've only got the impressions that packages should avoid using the > 4th digit in their Standards-Version field, as that number has no > meaning when it comes to normative stuff. I've seen on IRC/MLs all kind > of comments saying that the 4th digit should be avoided, and most > packages avoid it indeed, but this wording in the policy makes me feel > like it's pretty much the same. After some discussion of this six years ago, it doesn't look like there was any consensus to change Policy here. Most people only use three numbers. Some people prefer to use four numbers to make it very clear what version of Policy they looked at, and just in case informative updates were relevant (probably a bug in Policy if that happens, but maybe not). I think it's therefore fine to use either, which is what Policy says now, so I'm going to close this bug. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>--- End Message ---
Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 877697 ...
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' > usertags 877697 = normative Usertags were: normative discussion. Usertags are now: normative. > tags 877697 = wontfix Bug #877697 [debian-policy] debian-policy: discourage using all 4 digits numbers in Standards-Version Added tag(s) wontfix. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 877697: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=877697 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#917995: marked as done (debian-policy: drop section 1.6 Translations)
Your message dated Sun, 10 Sep 2023 14:11:41 -0700 with message-id <87fs3lvilu@hope.eyrie.org> and subject line Re: Bug#917995: debian-policy: drop section 1.6 Translations has caused the Debian Bug report #917995, regarding debian-policy: drop section 1.6 Translations to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 917995: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=917995 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: debian-policy Version: 4.3.0.1 Severity: normal Hi, I hereby propose to drop section 1.6 Translations and the following sentence: "When translations of this document into languages other than English disagree with the English text, the English text takes precedence." If it is wrongly translated, then the English text probably isn't clear enough (otherwise the translation would have the same meaning) and would need to be clarified anyway to avoid being ambigious. Even if not, the same process can be used to clarify the meaning of non-English versions. There should be no need to put one language over others. Ansgar --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Ian Jackson writes: > Sean Whitton writes: >> I'm still inclined to prioritise unblocking people, by giving them a >> way of resolving disputes between versions of the document without >> asking on d-policy, but let's see. > It is the English text of policy that is reviewed and discussed and > approved here. That is, the "untranslated" policy. It is quite wrong > to say that the English text is not special. If it is desired to > provide normative text in other language(s), that text should be > discussed and approved in the same way as the English text. > Even so, that leaves open the possibility for multiple normative texts > which disagree. (This has occurred frequently in international treaties > with multiple normative texts and is a source of trouble.) I agree with Ian's argument here. Policy doesn't have a lot of resources for writing text, let alone translating text, so realistically our translations are unlikely to be comprehensive and will probably be the work of one or two people. I think they may be very useful because Policy is a complicated text and reading complicated descriptions in one's non-native language is difficult, but in practice I expect the most common use of the translations will be in conjuction with the English text. The English text is where nearly all of the work and review goes at present, so it is special in that sense. The delegated Policy Editors only maintain the English text. It's common in that situation to point that out in the document. I hear Jonathan's point that treating Policy as a standards document is perhaps a triumph of hope over experience, but in practice it is used to settle disagreements in Debian, however imperfectly, and in those cases the English text is the one that's been peer-reviewed and is more likely to resolve the disagreement. Given all of this, and the general lack of consensus in this bug for making a change, I'm going to close this bug. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>--- End Message ---
Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 917995 ...
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' > usertags 917995 = normative Usertags were: discussion normative. Usertags are now: normative. > tags 917995 = wontfix Bug #917995 [debian-policy] debian-policy: drop section 1.6 Translations Added tag(s) wontfix. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 917995: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=917995 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 590511 ...
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' > usertags 590511 = normative Usertags were: normative discussion. Usertags are now: normative. > tags 590511 = patch Bug #590511 [debian-policy] Document significance of first-listed alternative in dependencies Added tag(s) patch. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 590511: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=590511 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 1020248 ...
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' > usertags 1020248 = informative Usertags were: informative. Usertags are now: informative. > tags 1020248 = pending Bug #1020248 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Clarifying nomenclature for control file names Added tag(s) pending; removed tag(s) patch. > usertags 984511 = normative Usertags were: normative. Usertags are now: normative. > tags 984511 = pending Bug #984511 [debian-policy] debian-policy: please clarify how archive areas can be combined in source packages Bug #994008 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Clarify relationship between source and binary packages' archive areas Added tag(s) pending; removed tag(s) patch. Added tag(s) pending; removed tag(s) patch. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 1020248: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1020248 984511: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=984511 994008: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994008 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, tagging 904608 ...
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 904608 = wontfix
Bug #904608 {Done: Russ Allbery } [debian-policy] Include
upstream metadata spec in Policy
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.
> tags 830913 = wontfix
Bug #830913 {Done: Russ Allbery } [debian-policy]
debian-policy: Allow amd64 systems without /lib64
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.
> tags 940234 = wontfix
Bug #940234 {Done: Russ Allbery } [debian-policy]
debian-policy: add a section about source reproducibility
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.
> usertags 986320 discussion
Usertags were: normative discussion.
Usertags are now: normative discussion.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
830913: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=830913
904608: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=904608
940234: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=940234
986320: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=986320
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#991984: marked as done (Please document minimal environment variable needed for sensible-utils)
Your message dated Sat, 09 Sep 2023 21:28:34 -0700 with message-id <87jzsyzm6l@hope.eyrie.org> and subject line Re: Bug#991984: Please document minimal environment variable needed for sensible-utils has caused the Debian Bug report #991984, regarding Please document minimal environment variable needed for sensible-utils to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 991984: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=991984 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: debian-policy Version: 4.5.1.0 Severity: important Control: block 991982 by -1 Control: block 987675 by -1 Dear Maintainer, For now $env -i sensible-utils, fail due to $HOME and $TERM not set. I am for now working around HOME not set in sensible-utils core, but posix [1] documentation does not document really the value that should be set for a correct behavior of program. Nevertheless: - we should expect that PATH is set to a sensible value (note that it depends of the shell), but nevertheless not setting PATH is not really safe - HOME may not be set. If set the value may be incorrect (su -) - TERM may not be set. If set the value may not be correct - USER may not be set. If set the value may be incorrect (su -) So I will like to have a footnote saying that sensible-pager/sensible-editor etc, should test if they work under env -i, and if they do not work fallback to return 126 (according to shell documentation Command invoked cannot execute), thus allowing sensible-utils to fallback to vi that is safe and tested under env -i Bastien [1] https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/ --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Russ Allbery writes: > Policy does not mandate any specific behavior for sensible-editor and > sensible-pager other than that they will implement the EDITOR and PAGER > environment variable checking for you. I think that's best left to the > maintainer of those programs to decide. > We also don't expect that the editor or pager invoked following the > rules in Policy 11.4 (and, by extension, sensible-editor and > sensible-pager themselves) will work in unusual situations, such as ones > without standard environment variables set. We can't: the user is free > to set EDITOR and PAGER to anything they chose, including programs not > in Debian. So you can't really expect any particular behavior from > whatever EDITOR or PAGER is set to. Maybe it will fail with a helpful > error code, maybe it will start and not work but not exit, maybe > something else entirely will happen. This is really outside of our > control. There was no further discussion of this over the past year, so I'm going to go ahead and close this bug with the above comment. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>--- End Message ---
Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 904608 ...
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'
> usertags 904608 = normative obsolete
Usertags were: obsolete normative.
Usertags are now: obsolete normative.
> usertags 830913 = normative obsolete
Usertags were: normative.
Usertags are now: obsolete normative.
> tags 830913 + wontfix
Bug #830913 {Done: Russ Allbery } [debian-policy]
debian-policy: Allow amd64 systems without /lib64
Added tag(s) wontfix.
> usertags 940234 = normative obsolete
Usertags were: normative.
Usertags are now: obsolete normative.
> tags 940234 + wontfix
Bug #940234 {Done: Russ Allbery } [debian-policy]
debian-policy: add a section about source reproducibility
Added tag(s) wontfix.
> usertags 986320 discussion
Usertags were: normative.
Usertags are now: normative discussion.
> usertags 991984 = normative dubious
Usertags were: normative.
Usertags are now: normative dubious.
> tags 991984 + wontfix
Bug #991984 [debian-policy] Please document minimal environment variable needed
for sensible-utils
Added tag(s) wontfix.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
830913: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=830913
940234: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=940234
991984: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=991984
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#940234: marked as done (debian-policy: add a section about source reproducibility)
Your message dated Sat, 09 Sep 2023 21:23:52 -0700 with message-id <87o7iazmef@hope.eyrie.org> and subject line Re: Bug#940234: debian-policy: add a section about source reproducibility has caused the Debian Bug report #940234, regarding debian-policy: add a section about source reproducibility to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 940234: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=940234 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: debian-policy Version: 4.4.0.1 Severity: wishlist There is already a section about reproducibility in the debian-policy, but it only mentions the binary packages. It might be a good idea to add a new requirement that repeatedly building the source package in the same environment produces identical .dsc file modulo the GPG signature. I haven't checked how many packages do not fulfill this condition, but there are for sure packages where the Build-Depends: entry in the dsc file does not match the debian/control file, as they have been added manually after the package build. TTBOMK there is nothing preventing that in the debian policy. -- System Information: Debian Release: bullseye/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 5.2.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Kernel taint flags: TAINT_WARN, TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=fr (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled debian-policy depends on no packages. Versions of packages debian-policy recommends: ii libjs-sphinxdoc 1.8.5-3 Versions of packages debian-policy suggests: pn doc-base -- no debconf information --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Holger Levsen writes: >>> I haven't checked how many packages do not fulfill this condition > You should definitly do this before asking policy to be changed. > It's also not really hard, just loop through all source packages, > download them, rebuild them, compare. > And you might want to start with just the essential set. > and, TBH, I'm pretty sure very few source packages can be rebuild > reproducible. Proove me wrong! :) It's been about a year since the last response on this bug, and I think the most recent round of responses were to someone who quoted the entire original bug report without adding any new content. I don't think we can do anything with this bug on the Policy side until someone confirms that source package reproducibility is viable, so I'm going to close this bug for the time being. If someone wants to do the work to confirm that, please do open a new bug so that we can document it in Policy. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>--- End Message ---
Bug#830913: marked as done (debian-policy: Allow amd64 systems without /lib64)
Your message dated Sat, 09 Sep 2023 21:18:37 -0700 with message-id <87sf7mzmn6@hope.eyrie.org> and subject line Re: Bug#830913: debian-policy: Allow amd64 systems without /lib64 has caused the Debian Bug report #830913, regarding debian-policy: Allow amd64 systems without /lib64 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 830913: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=830913 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: debian-policy Version: 3.9.8.0 Severity: wishlist Some amd64 systems do not have /lib64, although they can run programs with the interpreter set to /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 . It would be nice if Debian could allow such systems. In section 9.1.1, where it says: The execution time linker/loader, ld*, must still be made available in the existing location under /lib or /lib64 "must" should be "should". smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Russ Allbery writes: > Javier Serrano Polo writes: >> Some amd64 systems do not have /lib64, although they can run programs >> with the interpreter set to /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 . It would be >> nice if Debian could allow such systems. In section 9.1.1, where it >> says: >> The execution time linker/loader, ld*, must still be made >> available in the existing location under /lib or /lib64 >> "must" should be "should". > You reported the above bug six years ago, and it looks like it never > received a reply. I'm sorry about that! > I'm confused by this bug report, though. What does "some amd64 systems" > mean in this context? It looks to me like the amd64 libc6 package > provides /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, so a Debian amd64 system would > satisfy this. Is there some alternate libc6 package available in Debian > that does things differently? Or are you thinking of some sort of > container or other type of restricted system? > Also, in this case, how does this work? Is the path somehow remapped at > the kernel level? (If so, I'm wondering if that would qualify as "made > available" for the purposes of Policy anyway.) It's now been about a year and it looks like this message didn't get a reply, so I'm going to go ahead and close this bug because I don't think we have enough information to act on it. If there are more details about my questions above, feel free to open it. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>--- End Message ---
Bug#904608: marked as done (Include upstream metadata spec in Policy)
Your message dated Sat, 09 Sep 2023 21:12:48 -0700 with message-id <87wmwyzmwv.fsf...@hope.eyrie.org> and subject line Re: Bug#904608: Include upstream metadata spec in Policy has caused the Debian Bug report #904608, regarding Include upstream metadata spec in Policy to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 904608: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=904608 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: debian-policy Version: 4.1.5.0 Severity: normal Hi, Some tools, like git-buildpackage, can support merging an upstream's version history into Debian packaging repositories. This enables more rich usage of (D)VCS when packaging - for example `git blame' works properly. Currently there's no canonical place to specify where upstream's VCS is located so people have to set this up manually themselves. If there were such a place, it would be possible for tools like `gbp clone' to configure the VCS to know about the upstream history when checking out a packaging repository. The request here is to ask whether this would be suitable for debian/control, along the lines of the Vcs-* fields specified in 5.6.26 and the Homepage field in 5.6.23. If so, I'd be happy to propose wording for policy. I'm not set on any particular name, so please feel free to weigh in on that if you'd like. Cheers, -- Iain Lane [ i...@orangesquash.org.uk ] Debian Developer [ la...@debian.org ] Ubuntu Developer [ la...@ubuntu.com ] --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Sean Whitton writes: > On Thu 26 Jul 2018 at 09:21AM +0100, Iain Lane wrote: >> However, I'm not very keen on the extra work that would be required to >> transfer that wiki page into policy as opposed to specifying an extra >> field. >> >> Do you agree that policy should recommend such a location and is the >> path to this recommendation, in your opinion, a ratification of the >> UpstreamMetadata page or something like it? > No-one needs to do that extra work anytime soon. Policy lags best > practices. The fact that debian/upstream/metadata is already being used > to store a URI to the upstream repository for a large number of packages > counts as standardisation, in Debian Policy terms. You can refer to it > in tools that you write. > We should eventually move the upstream metadata spec into Policy. I'm > retitling the bug, but also tagging it as moreinfo. The moreinfo tag is > used to indicate that it is not clear that the bug against debian-policy > is actionable. > What is currently unclear is whether the upstream metadata spec is > sufficiently mature to go into Policy. We need to hear from those > involved with that spec that it's sufficiently mature to go into Policy. > If it's sufficiently mature, such that all that's needed is writing a > patch to Policy, we can remove the moreinfo tag and leave the bug open, > awaiting someone driving its inclusion in Policy. If the spec is not > ready to go into Policy, then there is no Policy work to be done, and we > should close the bug. It's now five years later and there hasn't been any forward progress on including the upstream metadata spec into Policy or confirming whether it is stable. There has also been some disagreement with this idea from Guillem, who would like the data in a format that dpkg can read rather than YAML (which I assume he is unwilling to add as a dpkg dependency), and from Ian, who doesn't like the YAML format. I'm therefore going to conclude that we don't have support or energy for making a Policy change at this time and am going to close this bug. Someone who feels that the upstream metadata spec should be adopted by Policy and wants to push that forward is free to open a new bug to pursue that. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>--- End Message ---
Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 904608 ...
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'
> usertags 904608 obsolete
Usertags were: normative.
Usertags are now: obsolete normative.
> tags 904608 + wontfix
Bug #904608 [debian-policy] Include upstream metadata spec in Policy
Added tag(s) wontfix.
> usertags 1030382 normative dubious
There were no usertags set.
Usertags are now: dubious normative.
> tags 1030382 + wontfix
Bug #1030382 {Done: Russ Allbery } [debian-policy] encourage
Vcs-Git over other Vcs-* headers
Added tag(s) wontfix.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
1030382: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1030382
904608: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=904608
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 981406 ...
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' > usertags 981406 normative discussion There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: discussion normative. > severity 981406 wishlist Bug #981406 [debian-policy] define "makefile" as a GNU Make-compatible makefile; support 'gmake' shebang Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'minor' > usertags 1006976 normative proposal There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: normative proposal. > usertags 1049406 normative discussion There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: normative discussion. > usertags 1050221 informative discussion There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: informative discussion. > usertags 1050221 normative discussion Usertags were: discussion informative. Usertags are now: discussion normative informative. > usertags 940234 normative There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: normative. > tags 940234 + moreinfo Bug #940234 [debian-policy] debian-policy: add a section about source reproducibility Added tag(s) moreinfo. > usertags 990822 normative There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: normative. > tags 990822 + moreinfo Bug #990822 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Please document version scheme for derivatives Added tag(s) moreinfo. > usertags 1004522 normative There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: normative. > tags 1004522 + patch Bug #1004522 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Proposing new virtual package: wayland-session Added tag(s) patch. > usertags 1006912 normative There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: normative. > tags 1006912 + patch Bug #1006912 [debian-policy] is it time to have account deletion in policy? Added tag(s) patch. > usertags 1026231 normative discussion There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: normative discussion. > tags 945269 + patch Bug #945269 [debian-policy] debian-policy: packages should use tmpfiles.d(5) to create directories below /var Added tag(s) patch. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 1004522: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1004522 1006912: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1006912 1026231: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1026231 940234: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=940234 945269: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=945269 981406: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=981406 990822: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=990822 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1030382: marked as done (encourage Vcs-Git over other Vcs-* headers)
Your message dated Sat, 09 Sep 2023 19:35:06 -0700 with message-id <87a5tu21t1@hope.eyrie.org> and subject line Re: Bug#1030382: encourage Vcs-Git over other Vcs-* headers has caused the Debian Bug report #1030382, regarding encourage Vcs-Git over other Vcs-* headers to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1030382: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1030382 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: debian-policy Severity: wishlist Policy currently describes Vcs-* headers as something optional, but stops to endorse a particular Vcs. At this point, it seems uncontroversial to encourage use of Vcs-Git specifically here. Apart from technical arguments, it's the vcs that the majority of packages in the archive uses - and thus will have the better tooling, less of a learning curve for other contributors, etc. There are very few holdouts of other vcses in the archive. I count 62 (ignoring those with an alioth URL): * 26 on Svn * 3 on Cvs * 4 on Hg (2 are hg/hg-buildpackage) * 39 on bzr (half of these are actually bzr and related packages, which I maintain) Cheers, Jelmer -- System Information: Debian Release: bookworm/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 6.0.0-5-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU threads; PREEMPT) Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled debian-policy depends on no packages. Versions of packages debian-policy recommends: ii libjs-sphinxdoc 5.3.0-3 Versions of packages debian-policy suggests: pn doc-base --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Jelmer Vernooij writes: > I've created a PR for devref - > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/developers-reference/-/merge_requests/41 > Are you saying that it doesn't belong in policy because it'd be a > recommendation rather than a must/should (at this point?), or because > it's more about the workflow inside of Debian than package contents? Policy only documents the contents of source and binary packages and a few related topics like the archive structure and the various control files that come along with packages. How packages are maintained is, so far at least, mostly outside the scope of Policy, which includes making concrete recommendations about version control systems, forges, workflows, etc. Therefore, the Developers Reference is the right spot for this. Since that has been merged, I'm going to close out this Policy bug. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>--- End Message ---
Processed: Re: Bug#1031403: debian-policy: missing quotes in sh script example in file policy/ap-pkg-diversions
Processing control commands: > tags -1 pending Bug #1031403 [debian-policy] debian-policy: missing quotes in sh script example in file policy/ap-pkg-diversions Added tag(s) pending. -- 1031403: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1031403 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 949258 ...
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' > usertags 949258 normative There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: normative. > tags 949258 + moreinfo Bug #949258 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Support negated architecture specifications in debian/control Architecture field Added tag(s) moreinfo. > severity 949258 wishlist Bug #949258 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Support negated architecture specifications in debian/control Architecture field Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'normal' > usertags 975637 normative proposal There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: proposal normative. > severity 975637 wishlist Bug #975637 [debian-policy] debian-policy: deprecate Rules-Requires-Root other than "no", "binary-targets" in Debian Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'normal' > usertags 983065 normative proposal There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: normative proposal. > severity 983065 wishlist Bug #983065 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Downgrades are not allowed / Package upgrades must have a greater version than previous packages of the same name in the same suite Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'normal' > usertags 990362 normative proposal There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: normative proposal. > usertags 998165 normative proposal There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: proposal normative. > usertags 1013195 normative discussion There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: normative discussion. > severity 1013195 wishlist Bug #1013195 [debian-policy] base-files: Please add AGPL-3 license Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'normal' > block 1013195 with 885698 Bug #1013195 [debian-policy] base-files: Please add AGPL-3 license 1013195 was not blocked by any bugs. 1013195 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 1013195: 885698 > retitle 924094 Add Artistic-2.0 to common-licenses Bug #924094 [debian-policy] base-files: Missing Artistic-2.0 in /usr/share/common-licenses/ Changed Bug title to 'Add Artistic-2.0 to common-licenses' from 'base-files: Missing Artistic-2.0 in /usr/share/common-licenses/'. > retitle 1013195 Add AGPL-3 to common-licenses Bug #1013195 [debian-policy] base-files: Please add AGPL-3 license Changed Bug title to 'Add AGPL-3 to common-licenses' from 'base-files: Please add AGPL-3 license'. > usertags 1021828 packaging There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: packaging. > severity 1021828 minor Bug #1021828 [debian-policy] debian-policy.info: mysterious anchors in cross-references Severity set to 'minor' from 'normal' > usertags 1024367 informative There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: informative. > tags 1024367 = patch Bug #1024367 [debian-policy] In 4.9.1, the example uses not recommended install -s Added tag(s) patch. > usertags 1027128 informative proposal There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: proposal informative. > usertags 1029831 normative discussion There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: normative discussion. > usertags 1039102 normative There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: normative. > tags 1039102 = patch Bug #1039102 [debian-policy] debian-policy: make systemd units mandatory for packages shipping system services Added tag(s) patch. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 1013195: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1013195 1021828: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1021828 1024367: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1024367 1039102: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1039102 924094: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=924094 949258: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=949258 975637: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=975637 983065: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=983065 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 924094 ...
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' > usertags 924094 normative discussion There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: normative discussion. > severity 924094 wishlist Bug #924094 [debian-policy] base-files: Missing Artistic-2.0 in /usr/share/common-licenses/ Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'normal' > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 924094: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=924094 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 945275 ...
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' > usertags 945275 normative discussion There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: normative discussion. > severity 945275 wishlist Bug #945275 [debian-policy] debian-policy: [9.1.2] deprecated `staff` group special case Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'normal' > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 945275: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=945275 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Re: Bug#1051371: debian-policy: stop referring to legacy filesystem paths for script interpreters
Processing control commands: > retitle -1 debian-policy: stop referring to specific paths in scripts shebang > examples Bug #1051371 [debian-policy] debian-policy: stop referring to legacy filesystem paths for script interpreters Changed Bug title to 'debian-policy: stop referring to specific paths in scripts shebang examples' from 'debian-policy: stop referring to legacy filesystem paths for script interpreters'. -- 1051371: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1051371 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1042779: marked as done (developers-reference: overhaul of chapter about i18n / l10n)
Your message dated Sat, 05 Aug 2023 14:41:21 + with message-id and subject line Bug#1042779: fixed in developers-reference 13.3 has caused the Debian Bug report #1042779, regarding developers-reference: overhaul of chapter about i18n / l10n to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1042779: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1042779 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: developers-reference Severity: normal Hi, yesterday I was a bit shocked when reading chapter 8 of the developers-ref: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/l10n.en.html That chapter has several wrong/bad sentences (or is heavily outdated, if that things have been correct like that at some time). I comment here on the different parts; a complete patch which integrates all this proposals is attached to this mail. "For program messages, the gettext infrastructure is used most of the time. Most of the time, the translation is handled upstream within projects like the Free Translation Project, the GNOME Translation Project or the KDE Localization project. ... is used most of the time. Most of the time, the translation ... Please avoid this doubled use of "most of the time" in direct repeating. (only cosmetic, yes.) The only centralized resources within Debian are the Central Debian translation statistics, where you can find some statistics about the translation files found in the actual packages, but no real infrastructure to ease the translation process." ... where you can find some statistics ... but no real infrastructure to ease the translation process. This is not true. The statistics page provides the possibility to directly download the po files by one click! This is for sure much easier than loading the whole source package, uncompress it and pick the po file out from there! So, it's much more than just a statistics page, and it makes translators work much easier! (What was meant here is probably, that Debian has no own pootle or Weblate server, where the translation can be done directly online?) For debconf templates, maintainers should use the po-debconf package to ease the work of translators, who could use the DDTP to do their work (but the French and Brazilian teams don't). Some statistics can be found both on the DDTP site (about what is actually translated), and on the Central Debian translation statistics site (about what is integrated in the packages). Here we have some wrong facts. The DDTP infrastructure is only for translating the package descriptions! It does not handle debconf template translations! And the DDTP site does not have statistics about debconf template translations. (Don't know, if this was different in the past, but this is the status quo.) For package-specific documentation (man pages, info documents, other formats), almost everything remains to be done. This is also not true! We have many translated manpages now for example, so we cannot say "nothing has been done on this". For all other material (gettext files, man pages, or other documentation), the best solution is to put your text somewhere on the Internet, and ask on debian-i18n for a translation in different languages. Some translation team members are subscribed to this list, and they will take care of the translation and of the reviewing process. Once they are done, you will get your translated document from them in your mailbox. ... the best solution is to put your text somewhere on the Internet ... This seems rather weird for me. Debian is such a huge community with much infrastructure, we should not recommend to "put the text somewhere on the Internet". That sounds poor. ... Once they are done, you will get your translated document from them in your mailbox. ... There is a big consensus, that translations are sent via wishlist bugreports. Please find a patch attached (can be seen as a proposal, of course). So long Holger -- Holger Wansing PGP-Finterprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076 diff --git a/source/l10n.rst b/source/l10n.rst index c66173d..8935907 100644 --- a/source/l10n.rst +++ b/source/l10n.rst @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ manual task, and the process depends on the kind of text you want to see translated. For program messages, the gettext infrastructure is used most of the -time. Most of the time, the translation is handled upstream within +time. Often the translation is handled upstream within projects like the `Free Translation
Processed: Re: Bug#1041464: debian-policy: make Uploaders field optional for team-maintained packages
Processing control commands: > forcemerge 798476 1041464 Bug #798476 [debian-policy] debian-policy: don't require Uploaders Bug #1041464 [debian-policy] debian-policy: make Uploaders field optional for team-maintained packages Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'normal' 1041464 was not blocked by any bugs. 1041464 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 1041464: 870788 Merged 798476 1041464 -- 1041464: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1041464 798476: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=798476 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: sorry for the noise
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > retitle 1040704 devref: information about pts subscribe gone Bug #1040704 [developers-reference] check_running_kernel fails to find version on bookworm/(arm64|armhf) Changed Bug title to 'devref: information about pts subscribe gone' from 'check_running_kernel fails to find version on bookworm/(arm64|armhf)'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 1040704: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1040704 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: #1040704: check_running_kernel fails to find version on bookworm/armhf as well
Processing control commands: > retitle -1 check_running_kernel fails to find version on > bookworm/(arm64|armhf) Bug #1040704 [developers-reference] devref: information about pts subscribe gone Changed Bug title to 'check_running_kernel fails to find version on bookworm/(arm64|armhf)' from 'devref: information about pts subscribe gone'. -- 1040704: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1040704 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: limit source to debian-policy, tagging 1035733
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > limit source debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'source' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to 'source':'debian-policy' > tags 1035733 + pending Bug #1035733 [debian-policy] debian -policy: packages must not use dpkg-divert to override default systemd configuraton files Added tag(s) pending. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 1035733: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1035733 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: your mail
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > block 924094 by 885698 Bug #924094 [debian-policy] base-files: Missing Artistic-2.0 in /usr/share/common-licenses/ 924094 was not blocked by any bugs. 924094 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 924094: 885698 > End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 924094: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=924094 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: your mail
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > unblock 885698 by 1009343 Bug #885698 [debian-policy] Update and document criteria for inclusion in /usr/share/common-licenses 885698 was blocked by: 1009343 885698 was blocking: 1009343 795402 833709 883966 883968 883969 884223 884224 884225 884226 884227 884228 910548 Removed blocking bug(s) of 885698: 1009343 > End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 885698: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=885698 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: your mail
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > block 1009343 by 885698 Bug #1009343 [debian-policy] please consider adding Boost-1.0 and Expat to /usr/share/common-licenses 1009343 was not blocked by any bugs. 1009343 was blocking: 885698 Added blocking bug(s) of 1009343: 885698 > End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 1009343: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1009343 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: your mail
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > block 885698 by 1009343 Bug #885698 [debian-policy] Update and document criteria for inclusion in /usr/share/common-licenses 885698 was not blocked by any bugs. 885698 was blocking: 795402 833709 883966 883968 883969 884223 884224 884225 884226 884227 884228 910548 Added blocking bug(s) of 885698: 1009343 > End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 885698: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=885698 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Re: Bug#1033162: Document proper strict depends like main-dev (= ${source:Version})) but NMU, backport and piupart safe
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> severity 1033162 wishlist
Bug #1033162 [developers-reference] Document proper strict depends like
main-dev (= ${source:Version})) but NMU, backport and piupart safe
Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'normal'
> tags 1033162 +moreinfo
Bug #1033162 [developers-reference] Document proper strict depends like
main-dev (= ${source:Version})) but NMU, backport and piupart safe
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
1033162: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1033162
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#379748: marked as done (information about unused direct dependencies and --as-needed in LDFLAGS)
Your message dated Fri, 17 Feb 2023 13:45:25 + with message-id and subject line --as-needed enabled by default since bullseye has caused the Debian Bug report #379748, regarding information about unused direct dependencies and --as-needed in LDFLAGS to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 379748: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=379748 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: developers-reference Severity: wishlist hi, i just asked myself why we do not make use of --as-needed. While searching the web i ended up with the following Blog entries by Ulrich Drepper, which do pretty well explain when to use --as-needed and in which cases it leads to problems: http://udrepper.livejournal.com/10946.html http://udrepper.livejournal.com/11056.html it might be handy to have this information covered within the developers reference somewhere. bye, - michael --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- hi, I'm sorry noone responded to this bug in almost 17 years. I'm closing this bug report now, as --as-needed is enabled by default since bullseye with debhelper 9, see https://wiki.debian.org/HardeningWalkthrough#debhelper_9 this was prepared around 2010 as the page history of https://wiki.debian.org/ToolChain/DSOLinking#Only_link_with_needed_libraries shows. so only two packages set it today in d/rules: https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=--as-needed+debian%2Frules=1 -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ The climate crisis makes a minimum voting age of 18 look so extremely unfair. signature.asc Description: PGP signature --- End Message ---
Processed: retitle
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > retitle 934527 Sphinx doesn't do correct index numbering for appendixes (does > 8.1 instead of a1.1) Bug #934527 [src:developers-reference] Sphinx conversion needs to take care appendix etc. Changed Bug title to 'Sphinx doesn't do correct index numbering for appendixes (does 8.1 instead of a1.1)' from 'Sphinx conversion needs to take care appendix etc.'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 934527: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=934527 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#934536: marked as done (info page needs to include more from index.rst)
Your message dated Sat, 11 Feb 2023 14:40:46 + with message-id and subject line info page has everything from index.rst has caused the Debian Bug report #934536, regarding info page needs to include more from index.rst to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 934536: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=934536 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Source: developers-reference Version: 11.0.1 Severity: minor For info page building, text before toctree is included in the opening info page but after is silently dropped. Also it doesn't care appendix. I am trying to include copyright text into the first opening page. -- System Information: Debian Release: 10.0 APT prefers stable APT policy: (500, 'stable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 4.19.0-5-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled -- no debconf information --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- hi, the info page has everything from index.rst, I'm thus closing this bug report. Should there be anything else missing in the info format, it's easy to open a new bug. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ This too shall pass. signature.asc Description: PGP signature --- End Message ---
Bug#658825: marked as done (Provide *single* page HTML manuals in http://www.debian.org/doc/*)
Your message dated Thu, 09 Feb 2023 17:19:34 + with message-id and subject line Bug#658825: fixed in developers-reference 12.15 has caused the Debian Bug report #658825, regarding Provide *single* page HTML manuals in http://www.debian.org/doc/* to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 658825: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=658825 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: www.debian.org Severity: wishlist Please generate alongise HTML manuals that are all in one page. - User's with faster network connections could utilize the manuals better. - Easier links. Someone asking a question, can e pointed to a whole manual. - Currect section based pages are not useful for searching. Can't cross search pages in multiple sections with broser's Ctrl-F. Jari -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 3.1.0-1-686-pae (SMP w/1 CPU core) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Source: developers-reference Source-Version: 12.15 Done: Holger Levsen We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of developers-reference, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive. A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to 658...@bugs.debian.org, and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. Holger Levsen (supplier of updated developers-reference package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2023 18:11:33 +0100 Source: developers-reference Architecture: source Version: 12.15 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Developers Reference Maintainers Changed-By: Holger Levsen Closes: 658825 Changes: developers-reference (12.15) unstable; urgency=medium . * Upload to unstable. . developers-reference (12.14) experimental; urgency=medium . * Build single page HTML manuals again. Closes: #658825. * Drop empty genindex.html pages and replaces links to it with ones to index.html. * pkgs: fix unexpected indentation warning. * *.rst: improve syntax highlighting for code and similar blocks. * Update all .po files for changed strings in the English original. * Drop existing d/*.lintian-overrides and reword placeholder 'Closes: #' entries in previous d/changelog entries. * d/changelog: clarify 12.13 entry. . developers-reference (12.13) experimental; urgency=medium . * d/tests: - add autopkgtest to validate XML and HTML files, thanks to Aurélien COUDERC who added some to src:desktop-base, which were then taken by Wolfgang Schweer to src:debian-edu, which I then took and modified to exclude a template and the (sphinx generated) search.html file. - add small README explaining how to run autopkgtests locally. Checksums-Sha1: 3ec60c302decb52c7b43e84f56dca487c2ea0a99 2501 developers-reference_12.15.dsc 6eb79d23345b4f5139820e6d8bd6e0a2f173e704 560240 developers-reference_12.15.tar.xz 6609826334fa7107ce21ad6174d87f75777b5301 5893 developers-reference_12.15_source.buildinfo Checksums-Sha256: 38e84181ef5a58712e44abb0f8907a6bbbd434729f3543dbba39b288f9fb8d80 2501 developers-reference_12.15.dsc 30c9b4821c0922d562a66b1e821ace89087413581ed784f3154b34dcd36240a4 560240 developers-reference_12.15.tar.xz c1dd02886f1d4ff170c25c97c21d9874b334e90b69ed0c9003ee9cb111e30241 5893 developers-reference_12.15_source.buildinfo Files: 2b260421fa33f0341aa86356beaf41ec 2501 doc optional developers-reference_12.15.dsc b3c51b78b93b640e2d990dd3c6c9d8b2 560240 doc optional developers-reference_12.15.tar.xz 4b0740e9338048df266dea9217457313 5893 doc optional developers-reference_12.15_source.buildinfo -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEuL9UE3sJ01zwJv6dCRq4VgaaqhwFAmPlKX0ACgkQCRq4Vgaa qhy8QxAAoHT+KUNNrmjj43tkVopkRwUieY5ovIxEaHExnMq8QC4fcg5rCVgtjRxQ bIoL9MnWZoRmulkP8SAUoP1MdZ4hGWll8uvGmPVrmm6evheNqu+/Q5YtcMf/BRT9 Kok+ay+52tL6jVFi/YJE54eyWo
Bug#658825: marked as done (Provide *single* page HTML manuals in http://www.debian.org/doc/*)
Your message dated Thu, 09 Feb 2023 17:04:22 + with message-id and subject line Bug#658825: fixed in developers-reference 12.14 has caused the Debian Bug report #658825, regarding Provide *single* page HTML manuals in http://www.debian.org/doc/* to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 658825: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=658825 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: www.debian.org Severity: wishlist Please generate alongise HTML manuals that are all in one page. - User's with faster network connections could utilize the manuals better. - Easier links. Someone asking a question, can e pointed to a whole manual. - Currect section based pages are not useful for searching. Can't cross search pages in multiple sections with broser's Ctrl-F. Jari -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 3.1.0-1-686-pae (SMP w/1 CPU core) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Source: developers-reference Source-Version: 12.14 Done: Holger Levsen We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of developers-reference, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive. A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to 658...@bugs.debian.org, and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. Holger Levsen (supplier of updated developers-reference package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2023 17:43:54 +0100 Source: developers-reference Architecture: source Version: 12.14 Distribution: experimental Urgency: medium Maintainer: Developers Reference Maintainers Changed-By: Holger Levsen Closes: 658825 Changes: developers-reference (12.14) experimental; urgency=medium . * Build single page HTML manuals again. Closes: #658825. * Drop empty genindex.html pages and replaces links to it with ones to index.html. * pkgs: fix unexpected indentation warning. * *.rst: improve syntax highlighting for code and similar blocks. * Update all .po files for changed strings in the English original. * Drop existing d/*.lintian-overrides and reword placeholder 'Closes: #' entries in previous d/changelog entries. * d/changelog: clarify 12.13 entry. Checksums-Sha1: 9c1677eb720e96da75b5c522c57facce8552e035 2501 developers-reference_12.14.dsc 237ebd762f5123ef67e84851a3cd79a0a002367c 560200 developers-reference_12.14.tar.xz b83c526aaeb3b4b85bb79d211b4a4c456d8ea06c 5893 developers-reference_12.14_source.buildinfo Checksums-Sha256: 382886ccfb6b969f31bb7906843c48690589c134aba511f302ff2167bca014a2 2501 developers-reference_12.14.dsc 0391e16300160ac6fbbfc17125f4e79eddaef5450e2ba97bfcae2e7adfc1f3ac 560200 developers-reference_12.14.tar.xz 90b6cea8d7666c9aa7f7d9e6c92fde17873ae17471f76f17625ea100596e477d 5893 developers-reference_12.14_source.buildinfo Files: 63d0830dc89e6e3af77a035fda994440 2501 doc optional developers-reference_12.14.dsc 1658e28cb92223f1c0cc3ccf3d6bc6d5 560200 doc optional developers-reference_12.14.tar.xz 98138d7f2bc338ae3629ec0091e4c4fa 5893 doc optional developers-reference_12.14_source.buildinfo -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEuL9UE3sJ01zwJv6dCRq4VgaaqhwFAmPlJTcACgkQCRq4Vgaa qhzvLhAAqyqSxYc7TbPtX/mWbKjyRJtbkrcKMRVLBYfQI90Z9xqgWDB7MREwO9iX yz2LZmI+zbThu7WWoyC6gi4o745+qh77oxpi1qjRhSNfQX7n2eC8iqShet2dNujX qskQwg6nHiBy9rMDzowqSXV5J0+obrB+pgQ9Q7UD/1ytpfvpRjEa1iaa6PhoACdp bmZuk1hi4RFdrJv0Hh9tqZKF1fp9m5+qA2FWRhIMsQ6dqXfI/FJ3EFR2E94MCoO6 iIu05vEz4DkNQY6XYUH9UqB0s3oOkzslbqVMagj/rriKDlDRpIrOv79pID+7VsFp dPU35JTxxq9SykBA7gPm+CXfeA1X6IvZoM1d1DdXbYGREEEtNLs5dcL7dkpUAFce dIcu+9Wwzaenu2ieyDnT2fImEFHRNjJTRXLQlue9Vy4/0brzfHH3bOc9Mh2xAeVS 7IpWcgRQGmnsYLeimWh47GElJ0m+iIgoE0gQE097aR1kNk8xLPRwkVZ7XV14YH51 CxFWcSRksR+IVOQ20hW2uKJ1p+FYbd0InK7epo0LXOGenDypGq4a5HXhOXU+CnTF W0MymXFHiDCNs+VTfJFyL2Ne6nRM2j85NiiIj3k2J8Ei8oAWA8xD57JjcEemwVkq Yko5JoG/Dn6MfRjRCRJD1yqlWs5oKWOtuRe9vE7g56
Processed: info version not shipped, close this bug?
Processing control commands: > tags -1 +moreinfo Bug #934536 [src:developers-reference] info page needs to include more from index.rst Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 934536: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=934536 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Bug#658825 marked as pending in developers-reference
Processing control commands: > tag -1 pending Bug #658825 [developers-reference] Provide *single* page HTML manuals in http://www.debian.org/doc/* Added tag(s) pending. -- 658825: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=658825 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Re: Processed (with 1 error): Re: Bug#801065: Documenting how to not fail postinst on service fails to start
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > retitle 801065 turn #904558 into advice - how postinst should deal with > failures Bug #801065 [developers-reference] Section 6.4 - discourage failing install or upgrade when service fails to start Changed Bug title to 'turn #904558 into advice - how postinst should deal with failures' from 'Section 6.4 - discourage failing install or upgrade when service fails to start'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 801065: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=801065 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: debtags future unclear
Processing control commands: > tags -1 +moreinfo Bug #299927 [developers-reference] developers-reference: Please add info about tagging packages with debtags Bug #339557 [developers-reference] devref: Please mention debtags as a best practice Added tag(s) moreinfo. Added tag(s) moreinfo. > affects -1 debtags Bug #299927 [developers-reference] developers-reference: Please add info about tagging packages with debtags Bug #339557 [developers-reference] devref: Please mention debtags as a best practice Added indication that 299927 affects debtags Added indication that 339557 affects debtags -- 299927: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=299927 339557: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=339557 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: consent unclear
Processing control commands: > tags -1 +moreinfo Bug #801065 [developers-reference] Section 6.4 - discourage failing install or upgrade when service fails to start Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 801065: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=801065 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#660193: marked as done (developers-reference: please suggest debian/rules target name for preparing source)
Your message dated Mon, 6 Feb 2023 18:53:34 + with message-id and subject line debian/rules targets to download sources are deprecated has caused the Debian Bug report #660193, regarding developers-reference: please suggest debian/rules target name for preparing source to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 660193: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=660193 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: developers-reference Severity: wishlist Maintainers might decide to add a special make target to prepare the source tree for building, i.e., that make target is run by the maintainer after a VCS checkout and possibly before releasing new versions. Possible reasons for this include reducing build dependencies and ensuring that specific files are equal on different architectures. Due to multi-arch, implementing such a target becomes more interesting. Although I do not expect this to be used widely, I think the developers reference should suggest a name for this target to archive consistency. The package debianutils already uses such a target and uses 'prebuild' as name. The developers reference could adopt this name. I'm not sure if it should be added as "6.1.4. Additional make targets in debian/rules" or be incorporated into "6.7.5. Architecture-independent data" (since the other mentioned use case, reducing build dependencies, is primarily interesting for essential packages). The "proper dependency" part in the quote below could be addressed too. * Russ Allbery [2012-02-17 00:48 -0800]: > Carsten Hey writes: > > debianutils uses a special make target 'prebuild' in debian/rules to > > update build system related files and PO files before the actual source > > package is built. > > > This basic idea also could be used to build problematic documentation > > files on the maintainers computer before he/she builds the package. The > > other targets would then install the prebuilt documentation into the > > package without the need to build it first. A proper dependency on > > debian/$prebuilt_doc could ensure that maintainers do not forget to run > > debian/rules prebuild. > > > If maintainers choose to use such a target, suggesting a common name for > > it in the developers reference could be reasonable. > > That's an interesting idea. That's very similar to what I already do as > upstream (I build POD-generated man pages from my autogen script, and in > Debian packaging don't bother to regenerate them). --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- hi, debian/rules targets to download sources are deprecated, thus closing this bug. I'll also add a pointer to https://wiki.debian.org/debian/watch Thanks! -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ In Germany we don‘t say „Happy Valentine‘s Day, I love you“, we say „ich werde diesen vom Markt kreierten, konsumorientierten Trend des Kapitalismus nicht unterstützen,“ and I think that’s beautiful. (Hazel Brugger) signature.asc Description: PGP signature --- End Message ---
Bug#1027832: marked as done (debian-policy: Please clarify that priority required packages are not automatically build essential)
Your message dated Wed, 4 Jan 2023 22:20:46 +0100 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#1027832: debian-policy: Please clarify that priority required packages are not automatically build essential has caused the Debian Bug report #1027832, regarding debian-policy: Please clarify that priority required packages are not automatically build essential to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1027832: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1027832 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: debian-policy Version: 4.6.2.0 Severity: wishlist Hello. This is an attempt to put the basis for fixing this bug: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=837060 As an example, packages tzdata, mount or e2fsprogs are not build-essential and afaik have not been for a long time, but there are still people who believe that they are build-essential for the mere fact that they are priority:required. Therefore I think a clarification would be useful to clear those kind of misconceptions. Proposed text, to be added after the paragraph which defines build essential based on the Hello World example: -- From this definition it follows that packages of required priority are not necessarily build essential, as it is possible for some them not to be needed at all to compile, link and put in a Debian package a Hello World program written in C or C++. -- Next step would be to add a paragraph saying tools like debootstrap when used to create chroots for building (i.e. "buildd" profile in deboostrap) should try to keep the list of installed packages as minimal as possible, as far as doing so does not become disruptive (for example, apt is technically not build-essential but it is required to install the build-dependencies). Thanks. --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- El 4/1/23 a las 19:28, Sam Hartman escribió: "Santiago" == Santiago Vila writes: Santiago> I think you can't really estimate such thing. You seem to Santiago> imply that we have been allowing packages with missing Santiago> build-dependencies for a long time, but that's not Santiago> accurate. The *buildds* have been allowing packages with Santiago> missing build-dependencies for a long time, but I have Santiago> been reporting those bugs for a long time as well. Thanks for the additional information. You have not changed my mind. I would prefer to solve this situation by increasing the build essential set based on what I know today. This bug report was a request to clarify policy without altering it, for those who don't understand "packages required to build a hello world program" which is already in policy. But I'm starting to feel uncomfortable with the fact that the bug report is actually being used to propose a policy change, which was never the intent, as it's something completely different. I fully respect those who want to change policy regarding the build-essential definition, but I find it not appropriate to do that in this report, which was merely asking for a clarification of current policy. Therefore I withdraw my suggestion that current policy should be clarified by closing this bug, as there seems not to be a consensus that it needs a clarification, and I respectfully request that those willing to change the build-essential definition do so in another bug report. Thanks.--- End Message ---
