Hi
The linux package currently uses this behaviour. To be exact the
linux-signed-*, which are generated using the Debian code signing
infrastructure produce this:
| Package: linux-image-6.10.3-amd64
| Version: 6.10.3-1
| Built-Using: linux (= 6.10.3-1)
| Source: linux-signed-amd64 (6.10.3+1)
Th
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 10:10:11AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> +The Release Team may, at their discretion, downgrade a Policy requirement
> +to a Policy recommendation for a given release of the Debian distribution.
> +This may be done for only a specific package or for the archive as a
> +whole.
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 05:51:53PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> While checking the upgrade checklist I noticed this new requirement:
> +---
> | 4.9
> |Required targets must not write outside of the unpacked source
> |package tree, except for TMPDIR, /tmp and /var/tmp.
> +---
> The wordi
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 09:10:16AM -0600, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> Documents /var/run/reboot-required and
> /var/run/reboot-required.pkgs.
/var/run is not longer a thing, so: s#/var##
Bastian
--
Pain is a thing of the mind. The mind can be controlled.
-- Spock, "Operation -- Annih
Hi
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:49:58AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> This makes it sound theoretical, or a question of breaking people's
> `finger macros'. That is indeed annoying. But there is a much more
> serious practical point, which Paul Hardy touches on.
How many people are using "ed" and n
On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 08:47:19AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > The overlapping ranges are:
> > 6-64999:
> > Globally allocated by the Debian project, but only created on demand.
> > The ids are allocated centrally and statically, but the actual accounts
> > are only created on users’ syst
On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 02:12:52PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Pirate Praveen writes ("Javascript team policy and rejection of node-three
> binary package"):
> > 1. Node.js has standard locations for discovering installed packages
> > which is different from browser targeted javascript libraries.
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 02:28:22PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Do you have any idea how long we can expect to wait until dpkg supports
> the field? I would suggest that we wait until dpkg has defined
> behaviour for the field, as it will make documenting it much easier. It
> will also allow us t
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 04:44:22PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Here's a patch to document the 32-bit nature of UIDs, in line with Ben's
> suggestion (which seems sound to me).
I miss the special case of 32-bit wide -2, aka nobody as used by nfs.
It should be reserved at least.
Bastian
--
Int
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 03:55:38PM +0300, Eugene Zhukov wrote:
> I encountered a Lintian warning executable-not-elf-or-script with one
> of my packages and then I learned about outstanding
> Lintian<->debian-policy bug #539315.
> How about fixing the policy by adding an exception for .jar files?
H
On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 10:45:39AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
> > 3. Neither the name of the Debian Project nor the names of its
> > contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
> > this software without specific prior written permissi
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 09:52:38AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > The missing architecture was my immediate thought as well, since for a
> > moment I thought ftp-master might need it, but then I realized that the
> > override settings are arch: all. So
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 04:25:46PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>First line is always
> the source entry.
Do you want this constraint part of the definition or a implementation
detail?
Bastian
--
No one may kill a man. Not for any purpose.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 03:14:00PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> It looks like this:
> Package-List:
> src:dpkg admin required
Is there a reason for not listing the type explicit for every entry?
Something like this:
dpkg source admin required
dpkg deb admin required
dselect udeb admin opti
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 01:27:38PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Does anyone think there's a need for another reserved ID range somewhere
> above 16 bits to replace this one?
Well, we could just reserve the upper half of the 32 bit space (and
document 2^32-2 as (NFS) nobody and 2^32-1 as don't us
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 03:44:53PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> That seems reasonable, although I think we should also point out the
> problems with using set -e when starting a daemon, namely that you need to
> be sure to wrap the start-stop-daemon invocation in a conditional so that
> you can pro
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 02:58:30PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Wouldn't it make more sense to expose this as a subdirectory of /sys rather
> than /lib, since this appears to be a kernel interface?
/sys/security is the mount point for securityfs, which is used by the
whole bunch of small securit
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 01:28:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26 2009, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > Policy is not coupled with init or the libs. This is a problem between
> > the kernel and the policy tools.
> This is not totally true: init loads the i
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 07:23:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26 2009, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > Oh, and this could be made even easier by defining file-based triggers
> > in the package providing init instead of doing it in all the
> > dependencies.
>
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:22:35AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26 2009, Bastian Blank wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 07:21:31AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 26 2009, Bastian Blank wrote:
> >> > Why are they not able to ig
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 07:21:31AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26 2009, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > Why are they not able to ignore the errors from telinit? All checked
> > packages uses this to ask init to reexecute itself and free old library
> > reference
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:40:56AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:43:18PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I created a elaborate test case tos ee if we are in a chroot, if
> > not if /proc/1 is actually /sbin/init, and that telinit exists (exa
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:43:18PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I created a elaborate test case tos ee if we are in a chroot, if
> not if /proc/1 is actually /sbin/init, and that telinit exists (example
> below).
Why are they not able to ignore the errors from telinit? All checked
pa
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 06:08:52PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Bug #209008 proposed to have a common interface to tell packages to do
> parallel building (make -j).
You can't set a generic value.
For example: A machine with 6 cpus but only 256MiB ram. Building glibc
with -j6 is no problem. Bui
On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 04:36:08PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> It has come to my attention that the gem package is currently built
> using 'make -j 4', to have four compiler processes running at the same
> time. This is a bit troublesome for the poor m68k buildd, which is now
> suffering under
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 03:17:19PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> I don't see other reasons behind the requirement, but am of course
> open to arguments. Did I overlook something?
We work on dependency resolving while bootstraping the system. parsing
the whole Packages files needs at least 6mb additio
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 12:39:45PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> And since we do make mistakes here, and since any change can cause a
> "ripple-effect", making other packages suddenly violate this clause,
> and since violations of this are both quite harmless and hard-to-spot,
> how about we change
27 matches
Mail list logo
