Re: Using dh for debian-policy packaging

Guillem Jover writes: > I can see advantages in both, but only as long as recursive make does > not add duplication. But in this case this might be the way to go. Or > perhaps move the subdocuments into the root dir? > Another annoyance was the document specific version files. I think it > would

Re: FYI: Updates to copyright and author notices

Guillem Jover writes: > It seems like is also for individual entities, according to > . Ah, thanks, good catch. Fixed. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Use newish dpkg-parsechangelog -S option instead of grep and cut

Oh, that's much nicer. Thank you, applied (along with the gitignore patch). -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)

FYI: Update to GPL notices

As part of the XML conversion, I noticed the GPL notices on the three documents released under the GPL were the older form that had an FSF street address. I updated them to the current recommended form, including switching to all-caps for the warranty disclaimer in the recommended way (sometimes w

[PATCH 1/2] Update .gitignore for debhelper switch

--- .gitignore | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore index 745e7e3..964597f 100644 --- a/.gitignore +++ b/.gitignore @@ -9,7 +9,10 @@ /debconf_spec/debconf_specification.html /debconf_spec/debconf_specification.txt /debconf_spec/include/version.xml +/deb

[PATCH 2/2] Use newish dpkg-parsechangelog -S option instead of grep and cut

--- Makefile | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index 1bcd84c..c2f3a97 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -7,10 +7,10 @@ # independent of their Debian packaging in the debian directory. # Basic package information. -PACKAGE := $

Re: Using dh for debian-policy packaging

Hi! On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 14:23:26 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Russ Allbery writes: > > I therefore intend to: > > > - Move all the formatting build machinery into the top-level Makefile. > > - Convert the packaging to dh with a minimal debian/rules file. > > - Move the doc-base registration fi

Re: FYI: Updates to copyright and author notices

Hi! On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 11:22:36 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > There's a set of stuff that's sort of in-between, where I feel comfortable > just making the change as a Policy Editor without approval, but where it > seems worth having some more public record so that people can disagree if > I make

Re: Using dh for debian-policy packaging

Russ Allbery writes: > I therefore intend to: > - Move all the formatting build machinery into the top-level Makefile. > - Convert the packaging to dh with a minimal debian/rules file. > - Move the doc-base registration files into debian with *.doc-base names. > My guess is that nearly no one w

Bug#845255: debian-policy: Include best practices for packaging database applications

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 09:44:44PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: > Hi all, > > I hate to ping bugs, but is there anything I can do to help this move > forward? (The policy 4.0.0 release reminded me of this bug). You should ask database applications maintainers to second this proposal. Cheers, -- Bi

Bug#845255: debian-policy: Include best practices for packaging database applications

Hi all, I hate to ping bugs, but is there anything I can do to help this move forward? (The policy 4.0.0 release reminded me of this bug). On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 21:17:55 +0100 Paul Gevers wrote: > It has been a while since the first version of the "Best practices for > packaging database applicati

FYI: Updates to copyright and author notices

When making changes to Policy, I've always used a bug to track any normative changes (changes that effect Policy requirements). For non-normative changes like typos, formatting, wording consistency, and so forth, I'll often just commit them directly to the repository with a changelog entry rather

Bug#759492: File conflicts between /bin and /usr/bin

wf...@niif.hu (Ferenc Wágner) writes: > On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 23:33:13 -0800 Russ Allbery wrote: >> + To support merged-/usr systems, packages must not >> + install files in both path > Is there a reason to omit the leading slash in this construct? I think > I'd find /path more sy

Re: Using dh for debian-policy packaging

Bill Allombert writes: > What we should really do is to remove the build-dependency on emacs > which cause trouble. Done! That was in 4.0.0.0. Guillem converted the remaining org-mode files to Markdown, and we no longer have an emacs build dependency. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)

Re: Using dh for debian-policy packaging

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 03:07:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Hi all, > > The current debian-policy package build rules generate a package using the > low-level dpkg plumbing directly, including calling dpkg --build. This is > something Manoj did routinely in his packages, and I subsequently >

Bug#759492: File conflicts between /bin and /usr/bin

On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 23:33:13 -0800 Russ Allbery wrote: > + To support merged-/usr systems, packages must not > + install files in both path Is there a reason to omit the leading slash in this construct? I think I'd find /path more symmetric and thus easier to follow. -- Regards