On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 10:07:04AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.6.2.1
Severity: normal
Policy 9.2.1 says:
Packages other than base-passwd must not modify /etc/passwd,
/etc/shadow, /etc/group or /etc/gshadow.
This makes, for example, the passwd package RC
I agree with Manoj's suggestion. The best way to go about it would be to
draft a complete proposal (including standardizing the output format), start
patching packages in unstable, and go from there.
FWIW, I think it would be appropriate to add an option to start-stop-daemon
to support this use
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:37:14PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could the settings
Severity: critical
Justification: root security hole
please be re-instated on this bug? In some common scenarios, current
arrangements allow root access.
Could this be done, please, while we
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 03:47:07PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
Epochs are more inelegant because they never go away, and rather have a
tendency of needing increases, which has a tendency of getting more confusing;
the ^(0\.)+ parts, on the other hand, disappear when the program authors
migrate
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 06:52:08AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
Libraries can't be essential, because it would make it too hard to
remove them when their sonames change.
Understood...but I was actually asking why policy seems to say that a system
lacking Priority: required packages could have a
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 08:34:13PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache show procps | grep Priority
Priority: required
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sudo apt-get remove procps
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following packages will be
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 11:35:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
* #80343: [PROPOSAL] policy should say no files should be owned by
nobody
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 02:07:26AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 07:48:43PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
It might be a good idea to specify how quoting should be handled, both for
shell metacharacters and format specifiers.
Odd, I thought I'd mentioned
http
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 11:03:21PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
It might be a good idea to specify how quoting should be handled, both for
shell metacharacters and format specifiers.
Well, it's been discussed several times before, but what the hey, I
guess I can discuss
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 11:49:43AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Then change the line in the postinst:
+ if [ $1 = configure ]
+ then
for i in /usr/bin/foo /usr/sbin/bar
do
- if ! dpkg-statoverride --list $i /dev/null
+ if [ dpkg --compare-versions $2 lt 2.3.4-2 ]
It might be a good idea to specify how quoting should be handled, both for
shell metacharacters and format specifiers.
From the existing text, it seems that command part means shell command
part, and it is impossible to implement this securely without specifying a
scheme for handling shell
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.7.0
Severity: minor
nostrip
This string means that the debugging symbols should not be stripped from the
binary during installation, so that debugging information may be included in
the + package.
From looking at the SGML source, this '+' appears to be
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 01:14:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
--- virtual-package-names-list.txt~ 2002-07-28 13:11:31.0 -0500
+++ virtual-package-names-list.txt 2002-07-28 13:13:37.0 -0500
@@ -63,6 +63,7 @@
awk Anything providing suitable
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 07:15:09PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
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.
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 10:38:15PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
The method of finding a package's changelog that I had always assumed
would be used is:
if (the package is native via dpkg)
return /usr/share/doc/package/changelog.gz
else
return
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 01:45:28AM -0500, Sam TH wrote:
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 12:46:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
fonts shipped, such as their license information). If one
or more of the fonts so packaged are necessary for proper
On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 11:52:41AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
However, I'd like to put images in something like /usr/share/web-images,
since I _might_ end up cluttering around and overwriting files which I
shouldn't, by placing the images in /var/www/mailman-images. Also, it looks
messy,
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 10:09:45AM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 04:14:47PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
s/packages should/packages conforming to policy version 3.2.0 or greater
should/
should referring to the Policy
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.2.1.2
Severity: minor
upgrading-checklist.text states:
- By default executables should not be built with the debugging
option -g. Instead, it is recommended to support building the
package with debugging information optionally.
It would be
On Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 04:49:29PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
tony mancill wrote:
While we're discussing this, I'd like to hear comments on the idea of
using an /etc/rc.config.d/$package scheme, like that in HP-UX. This file
is a shell script that gets sourced by the /etc/init.d/$package.
20 matches
Mail list logo
