On 2006-10-25, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[]
+ p
+For arch dependent packages, ttbinary-arch/tt must
+exist, since it is used by the build daemons to auto
+*buld* packages. The ttbinary-indep/tt target should
+also exist.
Here's a proposed patch. What do people think about this approach? I
know there was an inconclusive Policy discussion a while back about how
best to deal with this issue. As you can tell from this patch, I favor
the approach of documenting the specific features that we require and
assuming
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 19:41:40 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
+ itemttlocal/tt to create a scoped variable must be
+ supported/item
Underspecified. local in dash and bash behave differently. In dash the
variable value from outer scope is retained, in bash it is not.
Bugs
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 07:41:40PM -0800, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
+ itemthe tt-a/tt and tt-o/tt tttest/tt operators
+ must be supported/item
Why is that needed ?
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 19:41 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Here's a proposed patch. What do people think about this approach? I
know there was an inconclusive Policy discussion a while back about how
best to deal with this issue. As you can tell from this patch, I favor
the approach of
* Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061106 04:41]:
Here's a proposed patch. What do people think about this approach?
Sounds good, thanks for your work.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 07:41:40PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This flows from the Release policy. Not specifying /bin/bash
in scripts is not considered a RC bug.
I can try to propose better
I'd like to see this say something about what may be assumed of the
standard shell utilities, as well as the shell itself, and in
particular I'd like to see coreutils bug #339085 addressed [please see
the bug log for my personal very strong opinion on which way it should
be addressed].
zw
--
Russ's patch is no good, at least, it does not address the problems I
have raised in the past.
A Posix shell is allowed to have a builtin for ANY command without
restriction, and as long as the builtin has the behavior specified by
Posix for that command, it is a Posix compatible shell.
For
On Nov 06, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russ's patch is no good, at least, it does not address the problems I
have raised in the past.
It's still better than what we have now, and solving parts of the
problems is still better than waiting for the ultimate policy change
which
On Nov 06, Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ itemthe tt-a/tt and tt-o/tt tttest/tt operators
+ must be supported/item
Why is that needed ?
Because every modern shell which is not designed to be broken supports
them, and since they are in widespread use everywhere there is
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 23:51 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Nov 06, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russ's patch is no good, at least, it does not address the problems I
have raised in the past.
It's still better than what we have now, and solving parts of the
problems is still
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This flows from the Release policy. Not specifying /bin/bash
in scripts is not considered a RC bug.
I can try to propose better language for this. I think that using pure
bash-specific constructs not
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:03:11AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
@@ -113,36 +113,6 @@
either. Please see ref id=pkg-scope for more information.
/p
- p
- In the normative part of this manual,
- the words emmust/em, emshould/em and
- emmay/em, and the
On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 12:58:34PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
If a csh script does not start
with /bin/csh (or name some specific csh implementation; maybe there's an
opportunity for wording improvement) or doesn't depend on c-shell, it's
broken and won't work on a Debian system. That sounds
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:31:01AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 25 octobre 2006 à 01:03 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
Here is a first draft of changes to the policy that I think
are required to bring ot closer in line with extant practice. I
removed portions from
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:01:32 +0200, Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Why do change the second and third must to a should?
If the script uses features from bash, and /bin/sh points to for
instance dash, it's going to break. So you either stick
Le mercredi 25 octobre 2006 à 01:03 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
Here is a first draft of changes to the policy that I think
are required to bring ot closer in line with extant practice. I
removed portions from the policy that linked policy violations to bug
severities, since
On Oct 26, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW, I strongly disagree with these changes. The solution is to bring
the release policy in line with the real policy, not the opposite.
Yes, and let's forget about this reality bullshit...
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description:
Hi,
Here is a first draft of changes to the policy that I think
are required to bring ot closer in line with extant practice. I
removed portions from the policy that linked policy violations to bug
severities, since this has been deemed controversial and a bug in
policy. Next, I
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Hi Manoj
Can everyone please focus on the release and discuss things that don't help to
release on December 4th at all till after that date?
Thank you very much.
Luk
PS: For those people that seem to think they can't help: there is still a long
list of RC bugs,
Dear Luk,
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:16:59 +0200, Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Hi Manoj
Can everyone please focus on the release and discuss things that
don't help to release on December 4th at all till after that date?
Thank you very much.
The
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061025 08:04]:
[...]
Manoj, I'm seriously asking you if we can delay this discussion until
after Etch is out. I'm very interessted in takeing part in the
discussion, but I really have already to many open very urgent tasks at
my hands.
Cheers,
Andi
--
Hi,
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061025 08:04]:
[...]
Manoj, I'm seriously asking you if we can delay this discussion until
after Etch is out. I'm very interessted in takeing part in the
discussion, but I really have already to many
On 10818 March 1977, Luk Claes wrote:
Can everyone please focus on the release and discuss things that don't help to
release on December 4th at all till after that date?
No, the release is no reason to stop everything else.
--
bye Joerg
exa Snow-Man: Please don't talk to me. You have
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand we need to make concessions towards a release (like
concentrating on fixing bugs instead of introducing new major upstream
changes) but it shouldn't block Debian's progress in all areas.
You must understand that if Manoj is not fixing the
On 10/25/06, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have replaced some uses of the word must when it was
intended to be non-normative with alternate and equivalent wording,
which makes it easier to grep for must. This still needs to be
done for should (which I often replace
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:35:13 +0200, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061025 08:04]:
[...]
Manoj, I'm seriously asking you if we can delay this discussion
until after Etch is out. I'm very interessted in takeing part in the
discussion, but I
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any harm in refining the changes and
building consensus over time? The change document can exist as a
talking point, and you can still come in and provide us your input
when you have time (post etch).
Personally, I would see it as a
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:35:07 -0300, Margarita Manterola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On 10/25/06, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have replaced some uses of the word must when it was intended to
be non-normative with alternate and equivalent wording, which makes
it easier to grep for
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Dear Luk,
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:16:59 +0200, Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Hi Manoj
Can everyone please focus on the release and discuss things that
don't help to release on December 4th at all till after that date?
Thank
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10818 March 1977, Luk Claes wrote:
Can everyone please focus on the release and discuss things that don't help
to
release on December 4th at all till after that date?
No, the release is no reason to stop everything else.
It was not meant that way at all. I just
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:08:36 +0200, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any harm in refining the changes and building consensus
over time? The change document can exist as a talking point, and
you can still come in and provide us your input
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:03:11AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Next, I removed clauses that said that all the requirements of
policy must be met for a package to be in main or contrib; we know
that is not true.
I have replaced some uses of the word must when it was
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:51:26 +0200, Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10818 March 1977, Luk Claes wrote:
Can everyone please focus on the release and discuss things that
don't help to release on December 4th at all till after that date?
No, the release is no
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:01:32 +0200, Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:03:11AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Next, I removed clauses that said that all the requirements of
policy must be met for a package to be in main or contrib; we know
that is not true.
I
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:49:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
p
- Packages involving shared libraries should be split up into
+ Packages involving shared libraries ought to be split up into
several binary packages. This section mostly deals with how
this separation
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:51:26 +0200, Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10818 March 1977, Luk Claes wrote:
Can everyone please focus on the release and discuss things that
don't help to release on December 4th at all till after that date?
No,
Luk Claes, 2006-10-25 18:51:26 +0200 :
It was not meant that way at all. I just don't like that people
start to discuss topics that are long overdue near release time...
Topics that are long overdue should, by definition, be discussed and
worked on *now*, regardless of whether now happens to
* Roland Mas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061025 22:38]:
Luk Claes, 2006-10-25 18:51:26 +0200 :
It was not meant that way at all. I just don't like that people
start to discuss topics that are long overdue near release time...
Topics that are long overdue should, by definition, be discussed and
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:39:14 +0200, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* Roland Mas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061025 22:38]:
Luk Claes, 2006-10-25 18:51:26 +0200 :
It was not meant that way at all. I just don't like that people
start to discuss topics that are long overdue near release
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:20:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The only normative words are MUST, SHOULD, MAY, and
RECOMMENDED. I am considering using upper case where we expect
conformance.
Didn't the definitions of MUST/SHOULD/MAY get removed in your patch though?
Cheers,
aj
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 10:39:14PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Roland Mas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061025 22:38]:
Luk Claes, 2006-10-25 18:51:26 +0200 :
It was not meant that way at all. I just don't like that people
start to discuss topics that are long overdue near release time...
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:49:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
@@ -3195,8 +3112,8 @@
p
Additionally, packages interacting with users using
ttdebconf/tt in the prgnpostinst/prgn script should
- install a prgnconfig/prgn script in the control
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:44:38 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:49:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
@@ -3195,8 +3112,8 @@
p
Additionally, packages interacting with users using
ttdebconf/tt in the prgnpostinst/prgn
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:44:53 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:20:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The only normative words are MUST, SHOULD, MAY, and RECOMMENDED. I
am considering using upper case where we expect conformance.
Didn't the
46 matches
Mail list logo
