Hi!
On Wed, 2024-05-08 at 16:39:16 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> 'make update-po' changes files under locales/.
> Our translators Hideki, Fei Ding and Ke Zhang work under policy/locale/.
>
> This seems wrong. As far as I can tell, when the English is updated, we
> are not updating the .po files
Hi!
On Thu, 2024-03-28 at 09:58:29 +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu 07 Mar 2024 at 11:22pm +01, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst
> > index 4307e89..2fb05cd 100644
> > --- a/policy/ch-source.rst
> > +++ b/policy/ch-sour
Hi!
On Wed, 2024-04-17 at 04:24:16 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Package: developers-reference
> Version: 13.5
> Severity: normal
> Now that the deborphan package has been removed from unstable,
> the section "Make transition packages deborphan compliant" in
> "Best Packaging Practices" is out
Hi!
On Thu, 2024-04-18 at 23:29:11 +0300, Maytham Alsudany wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.7.0.0
> Severity: normal
> X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-de...@lists.debian.org
> In early 2022, Guillem added support for a new Static-Built-Using field to
> dpkg, encouraging packagers to use it over
to that new tool.
Thanks,
Guillem
From afac52fa956087eb737c123682f634fc739c7e20 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Guillem Jover
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 23:37:06 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?Add=20references=20to=20=C2=ABdpkg-buildtree=20?=
=?UTF-8?q?clean=C2=BB=20for=20debian/{substvars,files}?=
MIME
Hi!
On Wed, 2024-01-03 at 15:04:01 -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Guillem" == Guillem Jover writes:
> Guillem> At least the dpkg behavior seems entirely
> Guillem> correct to me and required for safe upgrades (
>
> Can you help me unde
Hi!
On Fri, 2023-12-15 at 16:40:09 +, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Fri 01 Dec 2023 at 02:11pm +01, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > §7.4 currently starts with:
> >
> > When one binary package declares a conflict with another using a
> > Conflicts field, dpkg will refuse to allow them to be
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.6.2.0
Severity: wishlist
Hi!
Starting with dpkg 1.22.0, it implements a dpkg-build-api mechanism
similar in concept to the debhelper-compat levels.
You can check its documentation in the dpkg-build-api(7) and
dpkg-buildapi(1) manual pages.
I think at least the
Hi!
On Tue, 2023-11-28 at 14:57:10 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Dimitri John Ledkov writes:
> > Dak currently requires Checksums-Sha1, but I am happy to facilitate in
> > patching dak to make Checksums-Sha1 optional if this bug report is
> > accepted.
>
> The field is documented as mandatory
Hi!
On Tue, 2023-09-12 at 22:17:44 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
> > Russ Allbery writes:
> >> Maybe the right way to do this is just have two examples, one as the
> >> default and another if you're using tmpfiles.d functionality added in a
> >> specific version of systemd
Hi!
On Fri, 2015-07-24 at 18:04:41 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.9.7.0
> Severity: wishlist
> As discussed in the debian-policy list, the Installed-Size algorithm
> as implemented in dpkg-gencontrol changed due to #650077. So the
> curr
Hi!
On Thu, 2022-09-22 at 19:20:00 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
> > The fact that this has gone unnoticed in a source package in an existing
> > release makes a pretty strong argument that nothing in Debian cares and
> > we should just remove the constraint.
>
> Here is a
Hi!
On Sun, 2023-09-10 at 16:31:30 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
> > Hmm, the "For this case" comes just after the "no binary packages" which
> > to me reads as being somewhat referring to it, perhaps the "no binary
> &g
Hi!
On Sun, 2023-09-10 at 10:30:41 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> index 4bab7df..904fa52 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> @@ -812,10 +812,11 @@ See :ref:`s-descriptions` for
On Mon, 2023-05-08 at 08:48:49 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> […] I suspect Policy should say something stronger and more general,
> namely that no package in Debian should divert a file from another package
> unless this is arranged cooperatively between the packages to solve some
> specific
On Sat, 2023-01-28 at 14:07:06 +0100, Ansgar wrote:
> Timo Röhling writes:
> > * Andreas Henriksson [2023-01-28 12:50]:
> >>Policy is not a religion. Policy has many bugs. Policy is very outdated.
> >>[...]
> >>Here's an example you could follow:
>
Hi!
On Sat, 2022-12-17 at 17:24:57 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Sat 17 Dec 2022 at 04:43PM +01, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Sorry, probably my fault! As I tend to use «Fixes:» git pseudo-fields
> > for things that fix part of a bug, but are not intended yet to close it,
>
ase, hope this is all not too inconvenient!)
> Guillem Jover writes:
> > And for some reason I think I also got the impression, even though
> > the stanza changes had been committed, they could still be backed out.
> > (BTW I've now gone over the wiki and updated all parag
ate: Sun, 18 Sep 2022 22:28:00 +0200
> From: Guillem Jover
> To: sub...@bugs.debian.org
> Subject: debian-policy: Clarifying nomenclature for control file names
>
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.6.1.1
> Severity: wishlist
> This is a followup from my comment at:
> h
Hi!
On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 20:27:46 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Helmut Grohne writes:
> > […] It can be made explicit in section 3.8 quite easily:
>
> > Since dpkg will not prevent upgrading of other packages while an
> > ``essential`` package is in an unconfigured state, all ``essential``
>
Hi!
On Tue, 2022-09-20 at 19:36:36 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Felix Lechner writes:
> > The installable stanzas in d/control (called "binary package paragraphs"
> > in policy) inherit the Section field from the source paragraph. There is
> > no reason to provide inheritance the other way
Hi!
On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 21:42:37 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Daniel Shahaf" writes:
> > Here's a revision of the patch incorporating the feedback so far:
>
> Thank you for this patch! I confirmed that your description matches the
> regular expression. This has now been applied for the
Hi!
On Thu, 2022-09-22 at 14:26:38 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 06:08:16PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> > I do find the use of paragraph the way we were previously using it to
> > be confusing, particularly given that the paragraphs contain fields
> > which in turn
Hi!
On Tue, 2022-09-20 at 21:21:23 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here is a patch to fix this wording in Policy. I think it's ready for
> seconds.
> >From c98654d7effa875c6e11da16159ac3feded8f763 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Russ Allbery
> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 21:17:55 -0700
> Subject:
Hi!
On Tue, 2022-09-20 at 18:52:22 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here is a patch that I believe implements that, and which I think is ready
> for seconds.
> >From 2260f7a3aafe93282860aad07b7d8c1544bcf0ce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Russ Allbery
> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 18:49:04 -0700
>
Hi!
On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 17:34:57 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Sean Whitton writes:
> > On Mon 19 Sep 2022 at 12:45AM +02, Guillem Jover wrote:
> >> So, personally, I'd be happy to fully switch to stanza TBH, because it
> >> seems more specific to our use
On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 18:01:38 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
>
> > Oh! I've completely missed this all this time, I think because that
> > feels very weird given that it has no synopsis and the text is added
> > already on the first line on the spec.
On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 18:04:00 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
> > BTW, just to make this clear, if this feels like it might not be decided
> > quickly on the Debian policy side, then I'll prepare/commit changes to
> > revert this behavior from tooling
On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 14:53:30 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Sun 18 Sep 2022 at 10:28PM +02, Guillem Jover wrote:
>
> > So, how does «source package paragraph» and «binary package paragraph»
> > (of the «template control file») sound instead?
>
> Can we standardise on
Hi!
On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 22:56:16 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 10:58:20 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Russ Allbery writes:
> > > I would happily apply a version of 0002 that only changes Files and
> > > leaves Copyright alone.
>
> I can
Hi!
On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 10:42:28 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
>
> > These are the set of changes I keep doing to the debian/copyright files
> > I end up touching. While some could be characterized as a subjective
> > style issue, I've tried to g
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.6.1.1
Severity: wishlist
Hi!
This is a followup from my comment at:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=998165#43
To summarize, we have IMO confusing naming and nomenclature for the
various control files and paragraphs/stanzas, and this is even
2001
From: Guillem Jover
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2021 07:11:55 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Use OpenPGP instead of PGP
The standard is called OpenPGP, PGP instead is a specific
implementation. And while depending on the context (such as filename
extensions) using .pgp is better and more neutral than using some
, but that's one that seems to also
be triggering some OCDish button or similar. :)
This change was implemented on top of the spacing and typographical
patches and seems to depend on changes in there.
Thanks,
Guillem
From 600aabb1a2235396db5fce4240ac0751258fcf7f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Guillem Jover
opposition. But I'm happy to convert these to
some of the UTF-8 ones if you prefer.
Thanks,
Guillem
From a367e8cd6dd50c4304978c07d3823826bfb61365 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Guillem Jover
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2022 02:49:28 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Remove trailing whitespace
---
Makefile
On Sat, 2021-12-25 at 18:45:08 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre writes:
> > On 2021-12-25 14:48:33 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> Vincent Lefevre writes:
> >>> Here, the build via "debuild" is failing even when fakeroot is
> >>> available (installed on the machine). Note that
On Tue, 2021-12-21 at 17:53:31 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Sun 12 Dec 2021 at 06:47PM +01, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
>
> > |--- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> > |+++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> > |@@ -652,9 +654,14 @@ orderings. [#]_
> > | ~~~
> > |
> > | In a source or binary
Hi!
On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 11:30:08 +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 09:23:00AM +0100, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> > Source: debian-policy
> > Version: 4.5.1.0
> > Severity: wishlist
> > In Julian Andres Klode's blog I've [1] glimpsed:
> >
> > > New features
> > > [...]
>
Hi!
On Fri, 2021-01-22 at 22:15:24 +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.5.0.0
> Severity: minor
>
> This is a bit of a nit pick, but I think it is a special case worth
> mentioning in Policy.
>
> I am basing this on
>
On Mon, 2021-01-18 at 18:25:55 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu 03 Dec 2020 at 05:08AM +03, Anatoli Babenia wrote:
> > diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst
> > index edae8c1..1265c5e 100644
> > --- a/policy/ch-source.rst
> > +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst
> > @@ -126,7 +126,7 @@
On Thu, 2020-11-26 at 08:55:21 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> AIUI the first year of contributions and the last year of contributions are
> important data points for each contributor for a project, and mostly only
> the last year as that might be used to calculate when a project becomes
> public
On Sat, 2020-11-07 at 13:30:13 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Could I ask you to explain your wanting to reduce the Essential set for
> the sake of small installation size in more detail, including some
> numbers, please? It would be good to get to the bottom of Bill's worry
> about this change,
On Wed, 2020-09-30 at 18:34:06 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > > Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > This change does not propose eliminating the concept of Essential, nor
> > > > does it propose that any specific package become non-Essential.
> > >
> >
On Sun, 2020-10-18 at 11:43:18 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 11:56:19AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > More specifically, it's the right first three steps.
> >
> > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#dependencies
> > currently says
> >
> >
Hi!
On Mon, 2020-10-12 at 11:35:22 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Right. I've clarified this now locally for deb-changelog(5) as follows:
> > +Is a one- or two-digit day of the month (B<01>-B<
On Sun, 2020-10-11 at 00:36:00 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.5.0.3
> Severity: minor
> Triggered by writing https://bugs.debian.org/971975 against lintian
> (which actually was triggered by writing another bug report, #971974
> :-), I noticed that in
>
>
On Wed, 2020-09-30 at 13:56:47 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:23:43AM +0200, Christian Kastner wrote:
> > To be honest, as a reader, I found that to be the opposite. The "If
> > [epoch] is omitted" makes it sound as if there were an alternative
> > handling if it's not
On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 00:58:27 +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-08-04 at 23:50 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-08-04 at 13:56:45 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > Ansgar writes:
> > > > 10.9 Permissions and owners currently says
> > >
On Tue, 2020-08-04 at 13:56:45 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ansgar writes:
> > 10.9 Permissions and owners currently says
>
> > | Files should be owned by root:root, and made writable only by the
> > | owner and universally readable (and executable, if appropriate),
> > | that is mode 644 or
Control: reassign -1 debian-policy
Control: retitle -1 debian-policy: Binary and Description fields not mandatory
in .changes on source-only uploads
On Mon, 2020-06-22 at 18:51:21 -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> Package: dpkg
> Severity: normal
> X-Debbugs-CC: debian-lint-ma...@lists.debian.org
>
On Tue, 2020-04-07 at 17:18:27 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed 08 Apr 2020 at 01:18AM +02, Guillem Jover wrote:
> >> +The copyright information for files in a package must be copied
> >> +verbatim into ``/usr/share/doc/package/copyright``, when
> >
Hi!
On Sun, 2020-04-05 at 17:54:01 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Here's a patch for seconding, and for the FTP Team to approve. Thanks
> to Scott for prompting the "all copies" amendation.
> diff --git a/policy/ch-archive.rst b/policy/ch-archive.rst
> index b8ba081..4217dd4 100644
> ---
Hi!
On Sat, 2020-03-14 at 21:49:12 +, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Sean Whitton wrote on Sat, 14 Mar 2020 20:39 +00:00:
> > On Sat 14 Mar 2020 at 08:09PM +00, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > Daniel Shahaf wrote on Sat, 14 Mar 2020 18:14 +00:00:
> > >> - ::
> > >> -
> > >> -
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.5.0.0
Severity: normal
Hi!
This was brought up on debian-devel, and I think it needs to be
updated/corrected in the policy manual:
On Fri, 2020-01-17 at 12:21:11 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-01-17 at 11:12:50 +0100, Ansgar wrote:
> >
On Wed, 2020-01-29 at 14:42:08 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Sun 26 Jan 2020 at 03:48AM +01, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > I think one of the nice things about RFC2119 is that it uses uppercase
> > versions for the normative keywords, so that these are very clearly
> > distinguis
On Fri, 2020-01-03 at 20:43:14 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
> > I agree, but let's also fix existing incorrect wording. I reviewed
> > every instance of may and optional in Policy, and I think this larger
> > diff will make wording (mostly) consistent. I've tried not to
On Sun, 2019-12-08 at 15:55:45 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
> > But here you do have another option, but I'm not sure it might be
> > described as nicer TBH, :) something like this, or variations on this
> > theme:
>
> > [Service]
> >
On Sun, 2019-12-08 at 11:15:57 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Sure, help fir that would be nice. Thanks for the offer. (Probably
> > should have an own bug for that.) Nethertheless, this is the line that
> > causes my problems and needs to be transferred:
> >
Hi!
On Fri, 2019-11-29 at 09:13:47 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
> > As I mentioned on debian-devel, I think major parts of this and of the
> > sysuser stuff fall under dpkg realm. And my plan is to implement this
> > kind of functionality nativel
On Fri, 2019-11-22 at 10:12:06 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ansgar writes:
> > I think no option says we shouldn't use services that don't rely on
> > systemd as pid-1 (which also includes widely used things like udev).
>
> I agree, but if, say, Sam's option 3 wins, we can directly incorporate
>
On Sat, 2019-11-09 at 08:55:23 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu 07 Nov 2019 at 09:00AM -08, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I'm in favor of dropping this information from debian/copyright and
> > instead writing some language saying that packages should include this
> > information in Homepage in
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.4.1
Severity: minor
Hi!
Noticed the following instances of spurious spaces after a dash, while
skimming over the plain text policy document:
- index, rendered as:
,---
* 7.8. Additional source packages used to build the binary -
"Built- Using"
Source: debian-policy
Source-Version: 4.4.1.1
Severity: normal
Hi!
Found this markup issue while going over the policy:
- chapter 4, footnote [6], rendered as:
,---
listed in the :ref:"`Maintainer" <#s-f-Maintainer` or "`Uploaders"
` control fields of the package), the first line
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.4.1
Severity: minor
Hi!
The rendering to plain text contain many technical terms, program
names, email addresses, make rule names, etc., that have been cut
at their hypen at the end of line. This makes copy more
difficult, and it reads confusingly.
I started
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.4.1
Severity: normal
Hi!
There's this text in section §9.2.1:
,---
Packages other than "base-passwd" must not modify "/etc/passwd",
"/etc/shadow", "/etc/group" or "/etc/gshadow".
`---
It's not clear to me, whether this refers to the packaging or any
On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 09:00:29 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
> > This means that when using a debian/watch file one has to duplicate
> > the information in two places, with the possibility of this getting
> > out-of-sync, etc.
>
> > In additi
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.4.1.1
Severity: wishlist
Hi!
We currently require (with a must) in section §12.5, to add to the
debian/copyright, where the upstream source was obtained from:
,---
In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream sources
(if any) were obtained,
On Tue, 2019-10-08 at 10:33:46 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 12:30:50PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > I don't really understand "#288822: developers-reference: "Bugs" control
> > > field
> > > not documented" and I'm n
Hi!
On Tue, 2019-10-08 at 10:09:08 +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 10:05:05 +
> From: Holger Levsen
> To: 288822-d...@bugs.debian.org
> Subject: bug purpose vague and unclear
> Message-ID: <20191008100505.grkghleotjlxn...@layer-acht.org>
> I don't really
On Sat, 2019-09-14 at 08:58:21 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Sat 14 Sep 2019 at 02:01PM +00, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 01:34:49PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >> There is already a section about reproducibility in the debian-policy,
> >> but it only mentions the binary
Hi!
On Fri, 2019-05-24 at 13:42:28 +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> > > In summary: The debhelper fundamentally cannot affect whether
> > > Rules-Requires-Root: no is default or not. The debhelper compat level
> > > system is the wrong interface to do this as well.
> > >
> > > That said, in a
Hi!
Thanks for sending this out Ian, part of this matches exactly what I've
been thinking for a long time, and the reason for my continued public
opposition and deep dissatisfaction with the tech-ctte as a body. I've
mentioned in the past [P] I'd put my thoughts in a more structured form,
but I
On Sun, 2019-07-14 at 15:03:28 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> In that case, should we increase the strength of this by changing the
> first sentence? I'm not seeing much purpose served by developer
> discretion here, and this clarifies matters for tool developers.
Sure.
> diff --git
Hi!
On Sun, 2019-07-14 at 09:31:16 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Yeah, this just seems generally wrong to me. I assume the idea was that a
> package may have mirrors of its packaging repository in multiple VCS
> systems and list all of them, but I'm dubious there's much point. My
> leaning is to
Control: reassign -1 debian-policy
Hi!
On Sat, 2019-07-13 at 10:27:24 +0200, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote:
> Package: dpkg-dev
> Version: 1.19.7
> Severity: important
> With two Vsc-Git statements in debian/control I get:
>
> dpkg-checkbuilddeps: error: syntax error in debian/control at line 14:
>
Hi!
On Mon, 2019-04-08 at 14:45:29 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> - whether I should use the scripts that were used to convert
> debian-policy Debian-SGML->docbook->rST+Sphinx, or instead write a
> new Debian-SGML->rST+Sphinx converter; and
Hmm, but the devref appears to be already in docbook?
Hi!
On Fri, 2019-03-15 at 00:37:33 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Maybe, but this is neither a new miscellaneous file nor a new
> bootstrapping action. This is yet another bootstrapping tool
> forgetting the lessons learned from the other bootstrapping tools.
My impression though is that the
om the packages themselves into
external bootstrapping tools is bogus IMO, and something we should
try to fix.
> Maybe the rule should be to retry configuration of each unconfigured
> package until either they all succeed, or forward progress stops being
> made? Pythonesque pseudocode:
I
Hi!
On Sun, 2019-01-06 at 00:34:30 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.9.8.0
> dpkg-source format `3.0 (quilt)' supports what it calls `additional
> orig tarballs', named
>-.orig-.tar.
>
> The documentation in dpkg-source(1) says
>component can only contain
On Fri, 2018-11-16 at 12:22:35 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> How about also adding one that makes it clear that in *Debian*, policy
> follows practice, and not the other way around (which should also
> require seconds just to make sure people agree with this, even if it is
> a
On Sun, 2018-08-26 at 12:17:23 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Gioele Barabucci writes:
> > For instance, apache (the application) is configured by some stub conf
> > in `/etc/apache` that loads *.conf files from directories such as
> > `/etc/apache2/sites-enabled/`. The real files are usually in
>
disengage and distance
myself from work involving them.
]
On Tue, 2018-07-31 at 19:43:32 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
> > If someone wants to see dpkg changed in some way related to this, I'd
> > request the same thing I did to Ian a couple of years ago, gather
On Thu, 2018-08-02 at 16:45:52 +0800, Markus Koschany wrote:
> Am 02.08.2018 um 16:27 schrieb gregor herrmann:
> > On Thu, 02 Aug 2018 15:13:26 +0800, Markus Koschany wrote:
> >> Nothing will break because no tool besides Lintian checks
> >> debian/copyright for copyright format 1.0 compatibility.
Hi!
On Tue, 2018-07-31 at 17:53:50 +0200, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> I'm going to attempt to first collect what I've picked up both from the
> previously mentioned mailinglist thread (and other similar ones) and
> what I've seen when reviewing maintainerscripts of packages in the
> archive.
On Tue, 2018-07-31 at 17:23:31 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 02:12:13AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > I'm detaching dpkg from this, I don't see anything constructive to do
> > out if this, TBH.
>
> > If someone wants to see dpkg changed in some
Control: reassign -1 debian-policy 3.9.8.0
On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 06:15:42 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> In any case, I discussed this in a private mail interchange with Ian
> a couple of years ago (AFAIR). My reply back then was that I don't
> personally feel very strongly about th
Hi!
On Wed, 2018-07-25 at 18:20:52 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Sean Whitton wrote:
> > On Wed 25 Jul 2018 at 05:14PM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
> >> Some tools, like git-buildpackage, can support merging an upstream's
> >> version history into Debian packaging repositories. This enables more
>
On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 09:15:25 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > FAOD I feel very strongly about this. The bug is over a year old.
> > Can the Policy Editors please tell me when it would be apprropiate to
> > escalate this to the TC ?
*Sigh*
> Sorry, I
On Thu, 2018-06-28 at 10:23:17 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> Sean Whitton writes:
> >> OK. Something like this?
> >>
> >> Packages must not contain files in /home, and packages' maintainer
> >> scripts must not write to users' home directories. The programs in
> >> those packages may
On Thu, 2018-06-28 at 14:34:06 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 01:43:17PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-06-28 at 13:03:56 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 11:39:53AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > >
On Thu, 2018-06-28 at 13:03:56 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 11:39:53AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Wouter Verhelst writes ("Bug#891216: seconded 891216: Requre d-devel
> > consultation for epoch bump"):
> > > I would oppose this change.
> >
> > > Documenting why
On Fri, 2018-06-15 at 19:05:17 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Sean Whitton writes ("Bug#846970: Patch to document Build-Indep-Architecture
> field"):
> > > +``Build-Indep-Architecture``
> > > +
> Zooming out a bit:
>
> We do not normally add fields to Policy until they
Hi!
On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 13:26:01 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.1.3.0
> We had another thread on debian-devel recently, in which it once again
> became evident that epochs are misunderstood. Epoch bumps should be
> rare and there are often better solutions. I
Hi!
On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 22:29:30 +0100, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> Package: developers-reference
> Version: 3.4.19
> Severity: normal
> Tags: patch
> in paragraph 5.6.5 you recommend to login to ssh.debian.org to find the
> logfile for queued. This seems to be no longer true. Nevertheless the
On Sun, 2017-11-05 at 10:20:35 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version 4.1.1.1
> Severity: normal
> User: debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: proposal
>
> On Sat, Nov 04 2017, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > While there has not been any comments / feedback on devel-devel,
On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 17:26:32 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22 2017, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > I guess there are two problems here, one is indeed completely losing
> > the multi-page rendering from the package. The other is the default
> > change in the web site.
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.0.0
Hi!
The info file, on its initial page contains a Menu with the following
entries:
,---
* Menu:
* Version::
* Contents::
* Legal Notice::
`---
For which Version contains a one-liner. It would be nicer if Contents
would get expanded into the main Menu.
Hi!
On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 11:09:37 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Sean Whitton wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 22 2017, Guillem Jover wrote:
> >> This version has lost the distinction between a single policy html and
> >> the one with different files per cha
Hi!
On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 09:44:02 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> writes:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Version: 4.1.0.0
>
> > While I'm not a very big fan of info files (even when using pinfo),
> > it seems for now it's the
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.0.0
Hi!
While I'm not a very big fan of info files (even when using pinfo),
it seems for now it's the only way to get section numbers w/o having
to use a browser. :/ So while using it I noticed that it has been
installed with an extremely generic name, for
1 - 100 of 291 matches
Mail list logo
