Bug#1064454: debian-policy: Restrict deb822 field names more

Simon Josefsson: Would it make sense to change this to use an inclusive list of permitted characters instead? How about checking the field names that is in use today, and construct a regexp of permitted symbols out of that? Starting point: [A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9-_]* /Simon That is an option and

Bug#1064454: debian-policy: Restrict deb822 field names more

Package: debian-policy Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-Cc: ni...@thykier.net X-Debbugs-Cc: lintian-ma...@debian.org X-Debbugs-Cc: de...@lists.debian.org X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-d...@lists.debian.org Hi I am hoping we can agree to some tighter bounds on the field names followed by relevant tools

Bug#1055760: debian-policy,dpkg: Please document maintscript flow with `prerm deconfigure`

Package: debian-policy,dpkg Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-Cc: ni...@thykier.net,debian-d...@lists.debian.org Hi The flow charts at https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ap-flowcharts.html unfortunately does not cover the `prerm deconfigure [...]` This makes it hard to figure whether a

Bug#1051582: Policy 9.3 (Starting system services) is largely obsolete

Russ Allbery: Niels Thykier writes: Russ Allbery: Ooo, this is a great framing of the problem. I have a lot of thoughts about this. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if they're actionable thoughts since my grand vision requires someone to sit down and do some serious Policy restructuring

Bug#1051582: Policy 9.3 (Starting system services) is largely obsolete

Russ Allbery: Niels Thykier writes: I had a look at the introduction section of Policy to check who the target audience is. I cannot find an explicit mention of the target audience. I suspect there is a conflict here on the content because we have different audiences in mind for the Policy

Bug#1051582: Policy 9.3 (Starting system services) is largely obsolete

Russ Allbery: Bill Allombert writes: [...] Quite a lot of Policy is of the general format "here's a bunch of complex things you need to do, wait, never mind, just use debhelper, go see its documentation for the configuration files you should use instead" and some of the rest of Policy is

Bug#1049406: debian-policy: Does Debian have native vs. non-native *binary* packages?

Package: debian-policy Severity: minor X-Debbugs-Cc: ni...@thykier.net Hi, I re-read a bit on the policy definition of native vs. non-native packages and it occurred to me that the written word of the policy seems to be confusing to read at best. The concept of a native package is

Bug#975637: debian-policy: deprecate Rules-Requires-Root other than "no", "binary-targets" in Debian

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 15:01:52 -0700 Sean Whitton wrote: Hello Ansgar, On Tue 24 Nov 2020 at 01:37PM +01, Ansgar wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Version: 4.5.1.0 > Severity: normal > > After a discussion in #-devel today I reviewed packages using other > choices of "Rules-Requires-Root" than

Bug#990362: debian-policy: Obsolete advice on multiple builds

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.5.1.0 Hi, In 4.9 "Main building script: debian/rules", we find the following paragraph under the description "build (required)": """ > For some packages, notably ones where the same source tree is compiled in > different ways to produce two binary packages,

Bug#981406: define "makefile" as a GNU Make-compatible makefile; support 'gmake' shebang

On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 12:52:13 -0500 John Scott wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Version: 4.5.1.0 > Severity: minor > > At the moment, debian/rules is required to be a Makefile, but it's not > exactly defined. In the absence of an explicit statement it seems most > reasonable that it would be

Bug#980825: debian-policy: Historical sign off dates in d/changelog and "single digit" day of the month

Control: forcemerge -1 971977 Guillem Jover: > Hi! > > [...] > > Isn't this report a duplicate of #971977? > > (I clarified the other report in deb-changelog(5) with > .) > > Thanks, > Guillem >

Bug#980825: debian-policy: Historical sign off dates in d/changelog and "single digit" day of the month

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.5.0.0 Severity: minor Hi, 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 https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#debian-changelog-debian-changelog where the date format of the

Bug#949006: debian-policy: Stop recommending stamp files in debian/rules

Jonathan Nieder: > Niels Thykier wrote: > >> debhelper cannot see "inside" the upstream build system. If you modify >> a .c file, debhelper won't notice and will currently just skip the >> entire build. Alternatively, debhelper will have to i

Bug#949006: debian-policy: Stop recommending stamp files in debian/rules

Jonathan Nieder: > Hi! > > Niels Thykier wrote: > >> [...] >> >> Notely, this trickery prevents you from hacking on the upstream parts >> and use "dpkg-buildpackage -b -nc -uc -us" to reduce the build times >> for subsequent builds. You would

Bug#949006: debian-policy: Stop recommending stamp files in debian/rules

Source: debian-policy Severity: wishlist Hi, I would like to propose that we drop or replace the following recommendation in Policy: """ When a package has a configuration and build routine which takes a long time, or when the makefiles are poorly designed, or when build needs to run clean

Bug#949007: debian-policy: Typo in example

Source: debian-policy Severity: minor In https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules-gainrootapi we find the following example: """ Examples of valid use of the gain root command: # sh-syntax (assumes set -e semantics for error handling) $DEB_GAIN_ROOT_CMD some-cmd

Re: debhelper: Please default Rules-Require-Root to no

Hideki Yamane: > Hi, > > On Fri, 24 May 2019 10:47:22 -0700 > Sean Whitton wrote: >> (surely we are a very long way from r-r-r: no for every package?) > > I don't think so since lintian info about > "should-specify-rules-requires-root" > containts only 98 packages. >

Re: debhelper: Please default Rules-Require-Root to no

Sean Whitton: > Hello, > > On Fri 24 May 2019 at 01:42PM +09, Hideki Yamane wrote: > >> Hi, >> 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.

Bug#845715: Required targets must not write outside of the source package tree

Sean Whitton: > Hello, > > On Sun 11 Nov 2018 at 09:10PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > >> Package support for TMPDIR can be introduced as a general requirement, >> outside of the build process. > > Okay. > >> Maybe the proposal could be rewritten in a way that does not need to >> cover the

Bug#845715: Required targets must not write outside of the source package tree

Sean Whitton: > Hello, > > On Fri 09 Nov 2018 at 09:46PM GMT, Niels Thykier wrote: > >> I suspect we are missing an exception allowing the binary targets to >> write the produced binaries in the parent directory of the unpacked >> source tree. >> Otherw

Bug#845715: Required targets must not write outside of the source package tree

On Sat, 03 Nov 2018 12:38:55 -0700 Sean Whitton wrote: > control: tag -1 +patch > > Hello, > > I reformatted and wordsmithed josch's patch, second it myself, and am > seeking further seconds. > > Given that whole archive rebuilds with use sbuild and already catch > packages that violate this

Bug#188731: debian-policy: "strip --strip-unneeded" is insufficient

Sean Whitton: > Hello Niels, > > On Sun 28 Oct 2018 at 02:22PM GMT, Niels Thykier wrote: > >> I think I agree with your suggestion of shading policy requirements that >> are already covered by common tools. > > Well, more specifically debhelper. > FTR,

Bug#188731: debian-policy: "strip --strip-unneeded" is insufficient

Sean Whitton: > control: tag -1 +patch > > Hello, > > On Fri 28 Sep 2018 at 05:38AM GMT, Niels Thykier wrote: > >> * We now have auto-generated dbgsym packages by dh_strip (which were >>just an idea when Bill wrote that answer). >> >> * Policy me

Bug#188731: debian-policy: "strip --strip-unneeded" is insufficient

Russ Allbery: > Sean Whitton writes: > >> Thank you for following up. > >> Here is a minimal patch, for which I am seeking seconds. I didn't >> include a recommendation to use dh_strip because we generally keep such >> recommendations in footnotes rather than the text of Policy, and we are >>

Bug#188731: debian-policy: "strip --strip-unneeded" is insufficient

On Mon, 11 May 2015 11:18:29 +0200 Bill Allombert wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 01:39:43PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 07:24:12PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > > > Section 11.2 says > > > > > > strip --strip-unneeded your-lib > > This is still true (the

Bug#813471: Seeking seconds for patch to permit some network access to localhost

Sean Whitton: > Here is a revised patch; David, hopefully you will renew your second. > >> diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst >> index 9e7d79c..890c479 100644 >> --- a/policy/ch-source.rst >> +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst >> @@ -278,7 +278,8 @@ non-interactive. It also follows

Bug#813471: Seeking seconds for patch to permit some network access to localhost

Sean Whitton: > Hello Niels, > > On Sun 22 Jul 2018 at 09:33AM GMT, Niels Thykier wrote: > >> The proposed text is awkward for me because I basically read it as: >> >> "" >> For packages in the main archive, no required targets may attempt >> n

Bug#813471: Seeking seconds for patch to permit some network access to localhost

Sean Whitton: > control: tag -1 +patch > > Hello, > > Here is a patch, for which I am seeking seconds, that tries to capture > the points raised by Osamu, Guillem and Paul without getting into > legalese -- Bill has a point. In particular, I think we can trust > package maintainers to interpret

Bug#880920: Document Rules-Requires-Root field

medium >> >> + * Policy: Document Rules-Requires-Root >> +Wording: Niels Thykier >> +Wording: Guillem Jover >> +Wording: Sean Whitton >> +Seconded: ... >> +Closes: #880920 >>* Fix URL to the alioth lists service in footnote (Closes: #896

Re: missing recommends are not RC severity

Russ Allbery: > Holger Levsen writes: > > [...] > > Release folks, why this exception in the release policy? Are you > comfortable with Debian releasing with packages that Recommend packages > that aren't part of the release? (Have we historically done this?) > Hi,

Bug#880920: Document Rules-Requires-Root field

;> @@ -1,5 +1,11 @@ >> -debian-policy (4.1.4.2) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium >> +debian-policy (4.1.5.0) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium >> >> + * Policy: Document Rules-Requires-Root >> +Wording: Niels Thykier <ni...@thykier.net> >> +Wording: Guill

Bug#880920: Document Rules-Requires-Root field

Sean Whitton: > Hello Niels, > > On Sun, Feb 25 2018, Niels Thykier wrote: > >> Attached is my updated draft along with a changes since the previous >> draft. > > Thank you for this! Let's get this into a release of the Policy Manual. > Hi, Thanks for cleani

Bug#895136: debian-policy: §9.1.2 - Contains example that is misleadingly different than what the policy mandates

Niels Thykier: > """ > if [ ! -e /usr/local/share/emacs ]; then > if mkdir /usr/local/share/emacs 2>/dev/null; then > if test -e /etc/staff-group-for-usr-local ; then > if chown root:staff /usr/local/share/emacs; then >

Bug#895136: debian-policy: §9.1.2 - Contains example that is misleadingly different than what the policy mandates

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.1.4 Severity: normal Last paragraph of 9.1.2 reads: """ If /etc/staff-group-for-usr-local does not exist, /usr/local and all subdirectories created by packages should have permissions 0755 and be owned by root:root. If /etc/staff-group-for-usr-local exists,

Bug#880920: RFC: Support for selective usage of (fake)root during package build (R³)

Niels Thykier: > > Sean Whitton: >> Hello, >> >> On Sun, Jan 21 2018, Guillem Jover wrote: >> >>> Ok, there were some comments provided, and some important omissions >>> were spotted. I'm attaching the diff for those changes, which mark now >&

Bug#880920: RFC: Support for selective usage of (fake)root during package build (R³)

Sean Whitton: > Hello, > > On Sun, Jan 21 2018, Guillem Jover wrote: > >> Ok, there were some comments provided, and some important omissions >> were spotted. I'm attaching the diff for those changes, which mark now >> the spec as a stable recommendation with 1.19.0.5. > > Sounds like this

Bug#880920: Document Rules-Requires-Root field

ng is not very hard at all. > > -- > Sean Whitton Hi, Here is an initial draft for how I think it could look. Review welcome. Thanks, ~Niels >From 337d56b25eadd4dd0d80f30019e9b837dbf01210 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Niels Thykier <ni...@thykier.net> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 11:2

Bug#515856: [debhelper-devel] Bug#515856: debhelper: please implement dh get-orig-source

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 11:04:04 +0200 Holger Levsen wrote: > On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:52:27AM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > [...] > > diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst > > index f706a13..27c49b5 100644 > > --- a/policy/ch-source.rst > > +++

Bug#630174: debian-policy: forbid installation into /lib64

On Tue, 9 Jun 2015 23:00:51 +0200 Bill Allombert wrote: >[...] > > OK, here a new patch. > > Seconds welcome! > > Cheers, > -- > Bill. > > Imagine a large red swirl here. Hi, I second the following change proposed by Bill: > diff --git

Bug#798476: Bug#870788: Extract recent uploaders from d/changelog

Adrian Bunk: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 06:13:09PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: >> Package: tracker.debian.org >> Severity: wishlist >> >> On Thu, Aug 03 2017, Holger Levsen wrote: >> >>> Then, Tobias has a point, knowing which team members uploaded a package is >>> useful. So I have a simple

Bug#758234: debian-policy: allow packages to depend on packages of lower priority

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:54:00 -0700 Russ Allbery wrote: > Ansgar Burchardt writes: > > > I discussed this a bit on IRC with the other ftp-masters and we came to > > this summary: > > > 0) We would like to drop the requirement for packages to not depend on > >

Bug#640263: debian-policy: Clarify policy section 9.9 - Environment variables

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 14:58:06 -0700 Russ Allbery wrote: > Russ Allbery writes: > > > Looking at this section, there are several issues. One is the issue > > addressed above, and I like Jonathan's wording for that. Another is the > > one Colin mentioned

Bug#787816: Replace FHS 2.3 by FHS 3.0 in the Policy.

On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 20:43:10 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: normal > > Le Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 07:09:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : > > I have not looked at this at all, but this list should be aware that it > > exists. > > > Date: Wed, 03

Bug#758234: another nasty fallout of this requirement

On Tue, 06 Dec 2016 15:54:46 +0100 Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > On Sat, 2016-12-03 at 06:33 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > And to actually fix the issues, instead of merely dropping the > > mention and > > thus making the dependencies last forever because of inertia, I urge > >

Bug#767839: debian-policy: Linking documentation of arch:any package to arch:all

b...@debian.org: > Hi, > Hi, Relying as the debhelper maintainer. Let me start by answering, where we are now (in compat 10). In compat 10, we got a simple narrow permitted set, where we can say: * The selections are /known/ to work in all cases. * They are simple to implement (correctly).

Bug#835452: debian-policy: Deprecating dependency of "binary" on "build"

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 22:06:51 +0200 (CEST) Santiago Vila wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Version: 3.9.8 > Severity: wishlist > > Greetings. > Hi, CCing debian-dpkg@l.d.o because I think Guillem would be interested in this. > Debian Policy 4.9 says: > > Both binary-*

Bug#821859: debian-policy: New virtual package ‘adventure’

On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 23:40:53 -0800 Russ Allbery wrote: > Ben Finney writes: > > On 20-Apr-2016, Ben Finney wrote: > > >> We intend to use the ‘adventure’ virtual package name, to declare > >> providing an implementation of the classic game

Bug#823348: Limit the strongest dependencies on supplemental -doc packages

On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 23:06:17 -0800 Russ Allbery wrote: > [...] > > > diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml > > index 404dc73..421e0d1 100644 > > --- a/policy.sgml > > +++ b/policy.sgml > > @@ -10699,6 +10699,18 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY > > > > > > > > + If package

Bug#816249: debian-policy: C.2.4 does not reflect current practises

Russ Allbery: > Niels Thykier <ni...@thykier.net> writes: > >> The section C.2.4 seems to be a bit outdated. Quote: > >> """ >> [...] >> """ > >> However, the default used by debhelper is "debian/",

Re: PIE + bindnow for Stretch?(Re: Time to reevaluate the cost of -fPIC?)

Bálint Réczey: > Hi, > > [...] > Hi, > I think making PIE and bindnow default in dpkg (at least for amd64) would be > perfect release goals for Stretch. > I support the end goal, but I suspect we should enable PIE by default via GCC-6's new configure switch[1]. Assuming it does what I hope,

Re: Time to reevaluate the cost of -fPIC?

Marco d'Itri: > On May 03, Josh Triplett wrote: > >> While this doesn't make PIC absolutely free, it does eliminate almost >> all of the cost, to the point that it no longer seems worthwhile to >> build without -fPIC. Apart from that, building *all* code with -fPIC >>

Bug#822430: debian-policy: Please update 8.1.1 to use the "ldconfig" trigger instead

Package: debian-policy Severity: normal Hi, Please update 8.1.1 to use the "ldconfig" trigger[1]. Possible wording could be: """ Any package installing shared libraries in one of the default library directories of the dynamic linker (which are currently /usr/lib and /lib) or a directory that

Bug#813471: network access to the loopback device should be allowed

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 19:48:17 +0900 Osamu Aoki wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 12:22:14AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > > Hi! > > This is probably too restrictive too. It would not allow local access > > through TAP device or other similar things. It might be better to just >

Bug#746514: Autoreconf during build

On Fri, 8 May 2015 14:43:45 +0200 Bill Allombert wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 09:36:26AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > Altogether, the wording was not restrictive as I thought. > > > > Nevertheless, what would people think of adding a bit more explanation on > > the

Bug#816249: debian-policy: C.2.4 does not reflect current practises

Package: debian-policy Severity: minor Hi, The section C.2.4 seems to be a bit outdated. Quote: """ C.2.4 debian/tmp This is the canonical temporary location for the construction of binary packages by the binary target. The directory tmp serves as the root of the file system tree as it is

Re: dh: Install binaries to /usr/games if Section=games

um 21:34 schrieb Niels Thykier: > [...] >> Hi, >> >> Are we still using /usr/games for games? AFAICT, the use of /usr/games >> is optional, so it is not clear to me that this desired? The last I can >> find on this in Debian is [1], which is 1½ years after th

Bug#727610: debian-policy: clearer discussion of why build-indep implies building the whole package

On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 14:14:23 +0200 Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org wrote: Hi! On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 15:47:56 +0100, Ximin Luo wrote: Package: debian-policy Severity: normal I was recently told to split part of my Build-Depends field into a separate Build-Depends-Indep field. Not one

Bug#662998: debian-policy: stripping static libraries

On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 19:13:15 +0100 Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net wrote: On 2014-02-28 19:05, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: I could do some work if you point me thé branch Bastien [...] It is the branch from [1]; needs to be rebased on top of a recent version of Lintian. ~Niels [1

Re: Bug#769818: lintian: false positive for dep5-file-paragraph-reference-header-paragraph

Control: tags -1 pending On 2015-07-08 06:57, Charles Plessy wrote: Control: reassign -1 lintian Control: retitle -1 lintian: false positive for dep5-file-paragraph-reference-header-paragraph Hello everybody, following Martin's clear report of false positive for the tag

Bug#767839: [debhelper-devel] Bug#766711: debhelper: support --link-doc arch:all = arch:any

On 2015-01-09 17:39, Niels Thykier wrote: [...] For reference, I have reviewed the situation a bit more and I have some updates to my previous statements. If you bump the version of the binary, then it is no longer the same version as the source package. Which is why I believe

Bug#767839: debhelper: support --link-doc arch:all = arch:any (was: Re: debhelper: Dependency added by dh_installdocs --link-doc breaks binary-only NMUs)

Control: severity 766711 wishlist Control: retitle 766711 support --link-doc arch:all = arch:any On 2015-01-08 23:19, Robert Luberda wrote: reopen 766711 block 766711 by 767839 thanks I have taken the liberty of marking the bug as wontfix (read: cantfix) and closing it. I'm re-opening

Bug#662998: debian-policy: stripping static libraries

On 2014-02-28 19:05, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: I could do some work if you point me thé branch Bastien [...] It is the branch from [1]; needs to be rebased on top of a recent version of Lintian. ~Niels [1]

Bug#706778: debian-policy: Please explicitly forbid - at the start of Deb822 field names

Package: debian-policy Severity: minor Policy §5.1 states that: [...] The field name is composed of US-ASCII characters excluding control characters, space, and colon (i.e., characters in the ranges 33-57 and 59-126, inclusive). Field names must not begin with the comment character, #. This

Re: Bug#701660: lintian: Possible wrong syntax-error-in-dep5-copyright test in Lintian (Duplicate field copyright)

, the context is On 2013-02-25 21:50, Niels Thykier wrote: On 2013-02-25 21:37, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: Package: lintian Version: 2.5.11 Severity: minor Correct me if I am wrong or if I lack some coffee, please, but with this copyright file: = Format: http://www.debian.org/doc

Bug#662998: debian-policy: stripping static libraries

Hi, I have created a Lintian branch for detecting insufficient stripping of static libs[1]. On a related note, dh_strip seems to do the right thing(tm) so any package using debhelper (correctly) should already strip static libs. Though I did not check if it can do detacted symbols... ~Niels

Bug#662998: debian-policy: stripping static libraries

Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes: One drawback here, then, is that we don't know how many packages would be affected. Is there a way that Lintian could introduce a check so that we know how many packages we would make buggy by adding a should? Hi, Both objdump and readelf handles .a

Bug#613046: debian-policy: please update example in 4.9.1 (debian/rules and DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)

On 2012-02-01 01:43, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Hi, Charles Plessy wrote: [...] By now I imagine that dpkg-buildflags is becoming enough of a de facto standard that it would be reasonable to just recommend it with a policy should. Niels, would you mind if I merge this with bug#578597?

Bug#656637: debian-policy: §5.1 is slightly ambiguous on space

Package: debian-policy Severity: minor Hi, I would like to request a clarification on whether spaces are allowed in fields. My first thought was that it is not allowed. However units-filter/3.5-2 has a a space in the fields of its d/control file, so presumably dpkg accepts it (at least to

Bug#578421: virtual-packages: Retire java-compiler, java2-compiler and java-virtual-machine

On 2011-11-29 00:32, Bill Allombert wrote: On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 11:07:53AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: Rene Engelhard wrote: On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 08:33:12PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: [java{,2}-compiler] - default-jdk. If used in an alternative in Build-Depends{,-Indep} then pick

Bug#613046: debian-policy: please update example in 4.9.1 (debian/rules and DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)

Package: debian-policy Version: 3.9.1.0 Severity: minor -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hey The example in 4.9.1 suggests to set CFLAGS in a way that completely overrides values from dpkg-buildpackage/dpkg-buildflags[1]: CFLAGS = -Wall -g This will set CFLAGS to -Wall -g

Bug#613046: debian-policy: please update example in 4.9.1 (debian/rules and DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2011-02-12 22:32, Julien Cristau wrote: On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 14:25:40 +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: Package: debian-policy Version: 3.9.1.0 Severity: minor Hey The example in 4.9.1 suggests to set CFLAGS in a way that completely

Bug#610298: phasing out tar-in-tar in source packages

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi I second the idea of phasing out source packages the old tar-in-tar, starting with a should (not) or a Recommend (against). :) ~Niels -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -

Bug#578421: virtual-packages: Retire java-compiler, java2-compiler and java-virtual-machine

Rene Engelhard wrote: On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 08:33:12PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: [java{,2}-compiler] - default-jdk. If used in an alternative in Build-Depends{,-Indep} then pick one of the options (The Java Team recommends default-jdk). And what are you going to do

Bug#578421: virtual-packages: Retire java-compiler, java2-compiler and java-virtual-machine

Package: debian-policy Version: 3.8.4.0 Severity: wishlist Justification: Policy §3.6 X-Debbugs-CC: debian-de...@lists.debian.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi As of today[1], the Java Policy retired the use of the virtual packages mentioned in the subject line, which