Bug#571776: document symbols

Cyril Brulebois writes: > Russ Allbery (13/01/2012): >> Yes, but there was some discussion in the Policy bug asking why shlibs >> files were required when they're not used if a symbols file is present, >> and while I originally argued that keeping them both made sense, I came >> around to that p

Bug#571776: document symbols

Russ Allbery (13/01/2012): > Yes, but there was some discussion in the Policy bug asking why shlibs > files were required when they're not used if a symbols file is present, > and while I originally argued that keeping them both made sense, I came > around to that position after reviewing the bug

Bug#571776: document symbols

Charles Plessy writes: > here are some comments about the current patch. I agree with the other > changes made subsequently in that thread. >> + If a package contains a binary or library which links to a >> + shared library, we must ensure that, when the package is >> + installed

Bug#571776: document symbols

Dear Russ and Raphaël, here are some comments about the current patch. I agree with the other changes made subsequently in that thread. > + If a package contains a binary or library which links to a > + shared library, we must ensure that, when the package is > + installed on

Re: Correction of typo preventing to build policy.

Charles Plessy writes: > Dear Russ and everybody, > here is a patch correcting a small typo (SGML tag not closed). Whoops, sorry. Applied. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with

Bug#629530: developers-reference: Japanese PDF available

Hi, On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 09:41:10AM +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:42:12 +0900 > Osamu Aoki wrote: > > > > Japanese PDF: > > > > > > > > http://people.debian.org/~taffit/developers-reference-xetex/developers-reference.ja.pdf > > > > Japanese look good :-) > >

Correction of typo preventing to build policy.

Dear Russ and everybody, here is a patch correcting a small typo (SGML tag not closed). Have a nice week-end, -- Charles >From 8145efd52d80122bdd9649c991a6d32425164871 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Charles Plessy Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 11:21:12 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] Correct syntax error by c

Bug#629530: developers-reference: Japanese PDF available

Hi, On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:42:12 +0900 Osamu Aoki wrote: > > > Japanese PDF: > > > > > > http://people.debian.org/~taffit/developers-reference-xetex/developers-reference.ja.pdf > > Japanese look good :-) Thanks, David :) Most of the contents looks good, however, some words are dropped. p68

Bug#571776: document symbols

Raphael Hertzog writes: > I think this description adapted from the deb-symbols(5) manual page > mislead you into thinking that there were leading spaces before | or * > when in fact there are none. > I have updated the manual page to make it look like this now: > library-soname main-dependency

Bug#571776: document symbols

Raphael Hertzog writes: > There is no leading space before the "*". Just like "|" it must be on > the first column to differentiate with symbol definitions which do have > a leading space on their lines. Oh, then deb-symbols(5) is wrong for both * and |... oh, I see, I was misreading how the syn

Bug#571776: document symbols

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012, Russ Allbery wrote: > + > + > +library-soname main-dependency-template > +[ | alternative-dependency-template ] > +[ ... ] > +[ * field-name: field-value ] > +[ ... ] > + symbol minimal-version[ > id-of-dependency-template ] > + I think this descripti

Bug#571776: document symbols

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012, Russ Allbery wrote: > >>For our example, the zlib1g symbols file > >>would contain: > >> > >> * Build-Depends-Package: zlib1g-dev > >> > >>(Don't forget the leading space.) > > > What leading space are you referring to ? > > I now have

Bug#571776: document symbols

Russ Allbery writes: > I tried sending a unified diff, but the new sections are largely > unreadable since they're intermixed with the old sections being removed. > Hence, for review purposes, here are the symbols and shlibs sections in > their entirety, followed by a diff for the changes elsewhe

Bug#571776: document symbols

Raphael Hertzog writes: > On Mon, 02 Jan 2012, Russ Allbery wrote: > [...] >> >>shlibs files were the original mechanism for >>handling library dependencies. They are documented >>in . symbols files, >>documented in this section, are recommended for most pa

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, tagging 498300

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 '

Bug#498300: specify that architecture-specific dependencies must have a non-empty list of architectures

Russ Allbery writes: > I agree that it's better to just make this a syntax error rather than > trying to guess at what it might mean. So, seconded. With Colin and I, > that's enough to commit it, but since this has been stalled for about four > years, I wanted to raise it again on the list and

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, tagging 620870

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 '

Bug#620870: debian-policy: Please add /run as FHS exception

Russ Allbery writes: > Here is an updated patch that tries to remedy those concerns. The > requirement for /run and /run/lock is a separate point in the FHS > exception list, and a new section under 9.1 has been added to spell out > explicitly, for everyone, the requirements on packages that mak