control: tag -1 -patch +pending
I too second the following change proposed by Bill:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 404dc73..f9fdbf7 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -6955,12 +6955,13 @@ Built-Using: grub2 (= 1.99-9), loadlin (= 1.6e-1)
>cha
On Tue, 9 Jun 2015 23:00:51 +0200 Bill Allombert
wrote:
>[...]
>
> OK, here a new patch.
>
> Seconds welcome!
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Bill.
>
> Imagine a large red swirl here.
Hi,
I second the following change proposed by Bill:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 404dc73..f9fdbf
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 09:21:13AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:30:54AM +0200, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> >
> > We should document that to prevent /lib64 to be used for wrong purpose.
> >
> > > In any case I'm not quite sure whether shipping files in lib64 in amd64
>
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:30:54AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > In any case I'm not quite sure whether shipping files in lib64 in amd64
> > packages (juffed/juffed-dev and zynaddsubfx-dssi do this now) is OK.
>
> I only found
> zynaddsubfx-dssi: /usr/lib64/dssi/libzynaddsubfx_dssi.so
> which
Le Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:30:54AM +0200, Bill Allombert a écrit :
>
> We should document that to prevent /lib64 to be used for wrong purpose.
>
> > In any case I'm not quite sure whether shipping files in lib64 in amd64
> > packages (juffed/juffed-dev and zynaddsubfx-dssi do this now) is OK.
>
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 02:01:13PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:45:25AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > This is the relevant part of the FHS (ill-advised imho, but required by the
> > LSB):
> >
> > -
> >
> > 6.1.5. /lib64 and
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:45:25AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> This is the relevant part of the FHS (ill-advised imho, but required by the
> LSB):
>
> -
>
> 6.1.5. /lib64 and /lib32 : 64/32-bit libraries (architecture dependent)
>
> The 64-bit archit
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 01:28:30PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 09:52:57PM -0600, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 11:55:20AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> >
> > > According to apt-file, prohibiting to install files into /lib64 and
> > > /usr/lib64
>
Le Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 09:52:57PM -0600, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 11:55:20AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > According to apt-file, prohibiting to install files into /lib64 and
> > /usr/lib64
> > on amd64 would make only one package RC-buggy, juffed, in its experimen
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 11:55:20AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 04:28:41PM -0500, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:58:02PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 13:49:53 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here is a patch.
> According
user debian-pol...@lists.debian.org
tag 630174 + patch
usertags 630174 + normative
thanks
Le Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 04:28:41PM -0500, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:58:02PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 13:49:53 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > > Cu
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:58:02PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 13:49:53 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Currently, section 9.1.1 relaxes the FHS requirement that /lib64 and
> > /usr/lib64 be used, but it doesn't prohibit installing files in that
> > location. However, du
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 13:49:53 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Currently, section 9.1.1 relaxes the FHS requirement that /lib64 and
> /usr/lib64 be used, but it doesn't prohibit installing files in that
> location. However, due to the way Debian handles this (with symlinks),
> bad things happen in
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.2.0
Severity: normal
Currently, section 9.1.1 relaxes the FHS requirement that /lib64 and
/usr/lib64 be used, but it doesn't prohibit installing files in that
location. However, due to the way Debian handles this (with symlinks),
bad things happen in terms of t
14 matches
Mail list logo
