On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Marco d'Itri wrote:
To prepare for the eventual removal of makedev, I propose that packages
currently depending on it will add an alternative dependency to udev.
Also, policy should be amended accordingly.
Er, why is makedev being removed? Please clue me in.
--
To
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Dec 29, Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To prepare for the eventual removal of makedev, I propose that packages
Er, why is makedev being removed? Please clue me in.
Eventual is the key word here.
Because /eventually/ it will not be needed
package: debian-policy
version: 3.6.2.1
Section 12.3 says extra documentation should be compressed if it is small.
However, small is not defined. It would be useful if it was; otherwise, there
is no real incentive to compress documentation, as one person's too large is
another person's small.
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 07:47:03PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
I am offering a third patch that implement the Build-Options control
field proposal.
I reject this proposal, until such time as the code has implemented it.
hint
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Bill Allombert wrote:
Hello,
I am offering a third patch that implement the Build-Options control
field proposal.
I reject this proposal, until such time as the code has implemented it.
hint: send patches to the bts for dpkg-dev
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
Uh, what if I want to put the following at the very top of my
debian/control file?
# $Id$
I was given to understand that dpkg 1.10.15 or so would be just fine
with it, whereas dpkg 1.9.21 or so would vomit all over it.
Placing comments in the
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 01:02:56PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Joy proposed to put such information in debian/control instead.
The idea of a new file was to ease parsing, but since it is read by
dpkg-buildpackage it should be OK.
This
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Josip Rodin wrote:
(FWIW, I've seen doogie mention thinking of moving debian/ to dpkg/ at some
point.)
I don't recall this. However, I could see mv debian deb.
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 02:04:27AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
It's newer and shinier, so it must be better, right?
If we're adding optional features, doing so in a way that doesn't
confuse people into believing that all packages need to use them
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Santiago Vila wrote:
I object to making the packaging system more complex without a real gain.
Well, without adding complexity, I do agree to having a field that specifies
the calling procedure for building the package. However, I don't like
Rules-Format, as it ties us to
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Bill Allombert wrote:
Some packages generate the control file at build time (e.g. from a
control.in). We need to access the file before debian/rules is used,
and debian/control might not exist yet.
debian/rules clean is called very early, and is where debian/control is
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
What needs to happen to get this into policy?
Nothing. It is not possible to support this. I attempted to in a dpkg upload
recently. It broke completely. I had to back it out.
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Herbert Xu wrote:
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Objection. There is no way to create any user in preinst as the tool
to do so is not in an essential package.
This is what pre-depends are for.
A single pre-dependency is not enough. You will need to convert
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 11:05:54AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
You also need to ensure that adduser and anything that it depends on to
function are always available at all times just like libc6.
You're confusing pre-depends and essentialness.
What
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Herbert Xu wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And appending this text to section 10.9:
If you want files in a package to be owned by a dynamically allocated
user or group, then you should create the user or group in preinst, so
that it
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Here's the current text of the latter part of section 10.9.1:
Given the above, dpkg-statoverride is essentially a tool for system
administrators and would not normally be needed in the maintainer
scripts. There is one type of
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Julian Gilbey wrote:
binary: binary-arch binary-indep
binary-arch: apt libapt-pkg-dev apt-utils
binary-indep: apt-doc libapt-pkg-doc
apt: build
libapt-pkg-dev: build
apt-utils: build
apt-doc: build-doc
libapt-pkg-doc: build-doc
But if you have a
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Julian Gilbey wrote:
So given how few packages we are talking about, would it be worth the
buildds using all packages specified in both Build-Depends and
Build-Depends-Indep and phasing out Build-Depends-Indep?
I modified apt's build earlier this week to work in split
On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Joey Hess wrote:
Er um, kilobytes of course.
-rw-rw-r--1 joey joey 843948 Feb 8 19:13 list
What about compression? bz2/gz?
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
Em Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:16:19 -0600 (CST), Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escreveu:
Thanks for creating this pseudo module, or for indicating who I should ask
if I'm wrong.
Ask ftpmaster, they are responsible. Additionally, I think
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Martin Quinson wrote:
[debian-i18n CCed for obvious reason, debian-policy CCed because I'm not
sure anymore who decides which pseudo-package exists]
Hello,
As coordinator of the french translation team, we would like to ask for the
creation of a new pseudo package in
Today, I almost ran out of space on my /usr(2 gig partition). So, when trying
to find things to remove, I turned my attention to /usr/share/doc(which
contained 380 megs).
In doing this, I found several packages that had large quantities of
documentation in a non-doc type package. This meant
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Matthew == Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew can you not use unprintably-encoded mime shite? it's hard to read.
shite? Fix your own darned MUA. (Actually, the breakage maybe
in debbugs, since I see my original message to
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Adam Heath wrote:
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Matthew == Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew can you not use unprintably-encoded mime shite? it's hard to
read.
shite? Fix your own darned MUA. (Actually, the breakage maybe
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
i don't know what mailing list manoj is so arrogantly assuming i read,
but i'm clearly not subscribed. did he respond to the other point i made?
-policy.
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Matthew == Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew i don't know what mailing list manoj is so arrogantly
Matthew assuming i read, but i'm clearly not subscribed.
You filed a bug against debian policy. Debian policy issues
are
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
[ I'm not subscribed to debian-policy so please CC me if you want me to
see your mail ]
Hello,
Yann Dirson pointed to me that the Uploaders field that we put in the
control file is not documented within the policy.
I don't know if it should
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
Adam Heath wrote:
/usr/info/dir was just recently moved, with dpkg 1.10. That file is now a
symlink to /usr/share/info/dir.
We should not need /usr/info/dir as a symlink. install-info works ok
without the symlink, the standard info browser does
On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Joey Hess wrote:
So would anyone murder me if the code in debhelper to make postinst
scripts manage /usr/doc links just went missing? This would of course
cause the link to go away when packages were upgraded to versions built
with the new debhelper. Since we'll be
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Joey Hess wrote:
Adam Heath wrote:
Otherwise, suddenly /usr/doc becomes empty, and those that access
documentation thru that location suddenly can't.
Um, those people have had a major release of debian which documents that
the docs are in /usr/share/doc, and several
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Chris Waters wrote:
Oh, no no no! We're not reopening this can of worms! We had weeks of
loud arguments about how to do this, and finally had to resort to the
tech ctte to get a ruling. Now we have a plan, and we're sticking
with it!
That was years ago. And, now that
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Joey Hess wrote:
No, I want to see no /usr/doc. If you want to make some symlink be my guest,
but /usr/doc is a FHS violation.
So? We have other FHS violations. We don't follow it strictly.
The transition plan, which you have had 3 years to comment on, specifies
that,
On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Joey Hess wrote:
So would anyone murder me if the code in debhelper to make postinst
scripts manage /usr/doc links just went missing? This would of course
cause the link to go away when packages were upgraded to versions built
with the new debhelper. Since we'll be
On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Marco d'Itri wrote:
(What about /usr/info - /usr/share/info ?)
/usr/info/dir was just recently moved, with dpkg 1.10. That file is now a
symlink to /usr/share/info/dir. Once all files are moved from
/usr/info(there's a few left), and all info browsers read from
On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, Herbert Xu wrote:
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are minor non-posix issues. The biggest is the use of echo -n(don't
say
use printf, it's too slow for shoop's target audience).
In the current Debian ash package, echo calls the printf builtin
internally
On Sat, 22 Jun 2002, Clint Adams wrote:
Any chance of a rerun with posh (sources are in queue/new and readable)
or pdksh?
I don't think you'll be able to gauge posh that way; shoop isn't
POSIX-compliant.
There are minor non-posix issues. The biggest is the use of echo -n(don't say
use
On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 07:18:45PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Chris Waters wrote:
or, more simply:
build binary-arch binary-indep binary clean:
debian/myrules $@
Or, even simpler:
%:
debian/myrules
Just because dpkg recognizes a field, doesn't mean everything implements it
yet. dselect/apt, need to handle it correctly.
This appears fixed in cvs, which will be part of 1.10. But until it is
verified as working correctly, and apt supports it, policy should not mention
it.
--
To
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Chris Waters wrote:
or, more simply:
build binary-arch binary-indep binary clean:
debian/myrules $@
Or, even simpler:
%:
debian/myrules $@
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For the record, if any tools in the dpkg suite can't handle multi-line fields,
please file bugs.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 25 May 2002, Clint Adams wrote:
the problem is there is no better replacement for 'command -v'. And we do
not
really need an exception -- every shell we have supports this. So the only
way
Well, that's not true. As Luca has pointed out, /usr/bin/which is
Essential at the
On Sat, 18 May 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
Why not just use /libexec, for hurd, and be done with it? Why force the
rest
of Debian to require use of it?
As I understand it, that's all they're asking for. But Debian Policy
says follow the FHS, and {/usr,}/libexec doesn't. And some
On Sun, 19 May 2002, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 11:49:45PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
Why not just use /libexec, for hurd, and be done with it? Why force
the rest
of Debian to require use of it?
As I understand
On 12 May 2002, Nic Ferrier wrote:
2.5. Main, contrib or non-free
snip/
If your binary package can run only with non-free virtual machines
(the only free Java virtual machine seems to be kaffe - and the one
included in libgcj), it cannot go to main. If your package itself is
On 12 May 2002, Jim Pick wrote:
Also, as the upstream kaffe maintainer, I'd really like it if for each
package that was stuck in contrib because kaffe can't run it (eg.
unimplemented APIs, etc), there was a wishlist bug filed against kaffe
stating how it fails. I suppose that goes for the
On Sun, 12 May 2002, Egon Willighagen wrote:
And the same for gcj? Is there an easy way to port a Ant based compilation
to some Makefile like stuff for compiling with gcj? Is there a good tutorial
on it somewhere?
I've got a makefile based build system, that supports jdk-like jvms(kaffe,
sun,
On Sun, 12 May 2002, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
Ok, then it is just a question of naming. Say my foo library can be
compiled to .class files and GCJ .so files. One option is to
package both in libfoo-java, which would be architecture specific.
But if you want to split them into an
On 12 May 2002, Jim Pick wrote:
Sounds like Debian could use the same solution for gcj that Debian uses
for emacs - just distribute the .java files and do the ahead-of-time
compilation (.java to .so) at install time. Is this automatic enough
under gcj so that this could that work?
Let me
On Sun, 12 May 2002, Per Bothner wrote:
Also, what happens if you install a Java package, and then install
gcj later? Shuld that so the compilation to .so when you install
gcj?
Each emacs extension packages places hooks into a site-wide dir. Then, all
the emacsen are processed over each
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Josip Rodin wrote:
This seems to be quite poorly worded... written in haste? :)
How about simply:
pIf your package includes run-time support programs that don't need to
be invoked manually by the users, or named in a way that would cause
|
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
No, the same functionality is _NOT_ served by tags. Like it or
not, our bug listing are done by severity, and shoving policy
violation into a tag degrades the importance of not violating
policy.
No. The web frontend considers certain tags
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
This is rather non-sensical: all packages /are/ left to the whimsy of
the dpkg developers. If you don't believe me, I'm sure Wichert or Adam
will be happy to introduce some random bugs in dpkg 1.10.x to demonstrate.
Just say the word, and we'd be happy
debian-binary
control.tar.gz
data.tar.gz
filelist.gz
detatched-sig-of-filelist.gz
detatched-sig-of-the-whole-deb
This is what I was thinking as well.
The current dpkg-deb is sub-optimal, however, for making this md5sum list. It
uses external tar to make data.tar.gz, which means each file
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
Dpkg has an internal tar for extraction, and it now has a configration
file, it should be trivial to have it optionally write out the file list
data - someone make a patch already :P Heck, I'll even make a reference
deb-file list converter if it will
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
This used to be documented in (I think) the packaging manual: if a cycle
amongst Depends: exists, the cycle will be broken by choosing the package
without a postinst (if there is one) or arbitrarily, iirc. There's still
some determinism to be had, but
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Peter Moulder wrote:
Adam Heath voices what is I believe the natural reading of current
policy, namely that Depends implies postinst ordering, and consequently
that dependency cycles aren't allowed.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200112/msg01392
On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
Ok. Should this be a lintian check? Test for cvs -d :pserver:...
in the rules file?
I can add it if I must. However I would like to trust our developers to not
be
that silly (-:
No, you shouldn't check.
It is not a bug if any kind of
On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
CVSGET=cvs -d:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvs/webwml \
co -p webwml/english/mirror/Mirrors.masterlist
build:
# Freshen Mirrors.masterlist file, but allow failure.
if $(CVSGET) Mirrors.masterlist.0 \
[ -s
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, John R. Daily wrote:
Possible reasons for mandating policy: insuring interoperability,
consistency, functionality, and desire to be a fascist jerk.
1) insuring interoperability
If a package doesn't work with the interface another package provides, it's
still a bug.
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, VALETTE Eric wrote:
I have been discussing quite a lot on different debian mailing list on a
way to automate debian installation. The final and almost unfiform
answer was to use debconf in non-interactive mode.
The technical reason is that due to use of tty the following
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
...or there is non-free code in the upstream tarball, or the tarball
unpacks to a poorly-named subdirectory, or doesn't unpack to a
subdirectory at all, etc.
These last 2 'problems' have not been problems for years. Update your brain.
Sorry for the large cc, but it is about time that debian had a unified policy
on these package names.
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
Okay. Note that java policy states that Libraries packages must be named
lib-XXX-java.
I think the java policy is wrong. Why should java be any
On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
In contrast, if the md5sums are stored in the package on CD, verification
is easy: You just need to boot from the (trusted) CD, and kick off the
comparison with the CD content. It is easier to trust a list of checksums
mirrored world wide and
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Can you elaborate on the advantage of letting everyone generate their own
checksums for the installed files? Seems to me a waste of cpu cycles.
We process all the data in a pipe anyway so calculating the
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Paul Slootman wrote:
On Wed 25 Jul 2001, Adam Heath wrote:
What happens if the admin has set certain permissions on the device files,
and
you go and recreate them, thereby removing those permissions?
So you say, that's easy to fix, I just won't recreate
package: debian-policy
version: 3.5.5.0
--
C.4 Unpacking a Debian source package without dpkg-source
dpkg-source -x is the recommended way to unpack a Debian source
package. However, if it is not available it is possible to unpack a
Debian source archive as follows:
1. Untar the
package: debian-policy
version: 3.5.5.0
--
That format is a series of entries like this:
package (version) distribution(s); urgency=urgency
* change details
more change details
* even more change details
-- maintainer name and email address date
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
You are the release manager. File the bugs, declare them
release critical [...]
Okay. Whatever. I really don't have the patience for -policy anymore.
I agree with Manoj on this. task packages exist potato and woody. That means
we have to
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Chris Waters wrote:
This is supposed to happen once enough packages make the transition.
Now, if we're really down to 253 packages that use /usr/doc (with no
symlink), then maybe it's time. But, unfortunately, that number, 253,
measures *claimed* compliance, not actual
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
Chris Waters wrote:
- A change in the policy to remove the obsolete /usr/doc symlinks.
This is supposed to happen once enough packages make the transition.
No, it is supposed to happen one release _after_ a release in which all
the packages have
On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Hi,
policy uses alphanumeric to define version numbers. Is this only a-zA-Z0-9,
or does this include the _? As the _ is used as a seperator in Debian
package file names, this would be perverse, but I would like to stay on the
safe side.
P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Adam Heath wrote:
Is this created in debian/control by the maintainer, or should it be
inserted
at package build time by an automated tool? Indeed, couldn't all fields be
inserted at package build time?
Right now in debian
* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG
-END PGP INFO-
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG
-END PGP INFO-
reopen 61116
thanks
On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Adam Heath wrote:
package: base-files
severity: important
During my upgrade tonite, /etc/motd was flagged as a changed conf file, so I
hit 'D' to see the diff. I was a little disturbed when I saw
-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG
-END PGP INFO-
d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888
reassign 44079 libapache-mod-jserv
thanks
On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
Package: dhelp
Version: 0.3.13
Adam Heath wrote:
Setting up libapache-mod-jserv (1.0-2) ...
ln: /usr/doc//libapache-mod-jserv: cannot overwrite directory
dpkg: error processing libapache-mod-jserv
Let's face it. Gnome sucks. I don't know if I can count how many gnome
versions we have in slink/potato. And then we have libaries that depend on
gnome, and if a program depends on these secondary libraries, then you have to
try and diddle around just to get it to compile.
I propose that gnome
I am replying to my own email, as I think that is best in what I am trying to
say this time.
On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Adam Heath wrote:
Let's face it. Gnome sucks. I don't know if I can count how many gnome
versions we have in slink/potato. And then we have libaries that depend on
gnome
I have made a wrapper to start-stop-daemon that had a new cmdline option, -B |
--background, that allows daemons to be started in the background
asynchronosly. This would allow the login prompt to appear sooner, and would
make Debian appear to be a faster loading system.
Below is the script to
82 matches
Mail list logo
