On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 03:51:15PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ben Hutchings writes:
>
> > +
> > + The upstream version number must not include a non-linear
> > + revision ID or hash, since it cannot help in ordering
> > + versions and it tends to result in very long versi
Hi Lars,
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 06:41:10PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > But shouldn't we say they _must_ lock package-specific system users
> > and groups when the package is removed ?
>
> I think that's a good idea. Steve Langasek in the bug (#621833) and
> others agree, so I think there's
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:03:34AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> sean finney writes:
>
> > For locking the account, I think it could be problematic if you have
> > some kind of central account management system (i.e. LDAP/AD), and you
> > don't want to lock it glo
Hi all,
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 02:25:36AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I agree that the accounts should not be deleted, but that the packages
> should still be responsible for certain forms of cleanup:
>
> - removing the user home directory (on purge?)
> - locking the account
> - (optional)
Hi Jonathan,
On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 15:58 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> * how many characters of grace area can tools like dpkg-divert feel
>free to use?
I don't think tools should be like "whoa, i think this filename is going
to be too long" for some arbitrary value, nor should they be lik
hi jonathan,
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 13:11 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Now that I check, the path provoking this was 269 characters
> (including leading '.'). I'm able to install the package, both on
> tmpfs and ext4, without trouble. I suppose it would be interesting to
> know: what was the e
Hi,
I don't think policy really has much place establishing an arbitrary
file limit either, though.
Having a warning in lintian for arbitrarily long (perhaps >= 256)
filenames is totally reasonable i'd say, but there's no reason to
otherwise throw out limits for the sake of having them. It shoul
appropriate
there and since it was not describing any particular rules but more
explanatory in nature.
Sean
From 5a9f66da4f9e0ca92ed8cb4ff20225896963bf04 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sean Finney
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:14:56 +
Subject: [PATCH] Document restrictions on altern
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 18:22 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Yes, this might need rewording. Some people claimed it was useful for
> backports, so if the backports buildds are using the aptitude resolver,
> they could make use of the alternatives without any changes to
> debian/control; maybe it could
hi russ,
On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 06:58:34PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> It's definitely worth talking about if the draft database policy says
> something else, as it appears to. My rationale is that the package setup
having re-read it yesterday i don't think that's the intention for it
to say s
On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 05:02:06PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> package: debian-policy
> x-debbugs-cc: debian-rele...@lists.debian.org
>
> Hi,
>
> please clarify what the right behaviour should be and how failing to install
> without a local db should be treated. Thanks.
http://people.debian.o
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 06:03:12PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> If not, there is not much advantage to move them under /usr/lib as it is done
> now. Most other parts for packaged web sites are already in
> /usr/share/. For simple sites, having the CGIs in /usr/lib/cgi-bin/
> makes the maintainer'
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 02:50:02PM +0200, Raphaël Hertzog wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.8.4.0
> Severity: normal
>
> The policy needs to be updated to take into account the dpkg triggers. At
> the very least it needs to document the new invocations of the postinst in
> chapter 6 (po
hi jan,
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 09:15:43AM +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> Not that I'm opposing to what you're saying but... every application in
> the archive is configured during the installation process, possibly
> asking debconf questions, providing defaults etc. After the installation
> it sh
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 06:15:42PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> I frankly hope that with /vendor/ + /usr/lib/cgi-bin/ (which we already
> have), and maybe with some symlinks under /vendor/ we will be able to
> address quite a lot of issues. It would be interesting to known which
> one we can'
Hi Manoj,
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:01:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Whoa. What makes for the situation to be unvoidable? Why
> should this ever be needed? What if the (optinal) /var/www is not the
> document root, and is not a symlink to the document root?
>
> I think
hi,
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 09:37:26AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> Under what circumstances, if any, is it considered acceptable for a
> package which is installed as a dependency by the upgrade of another
> package to silently break the system?
what defines "silently break the system"? that's
On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 04:04:46PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Or on removal, something like "Removing this package will remove your
> > data in blahblah. Are you sure you want to continue?" or better yet
> > "Do you want to remove the data in blahblah? [Yes] [No]" -- so you
> > could uninstall
On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 09:44:50AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The question is, why should we change something so deeply
> deployed as package postinst API without compelling reasons that the
> postinst should treat an upgrade differently from a reconfigure,
> especially since the u
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:04:59AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:06:54AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > If one is using a tool such as git-buildpackage, the "debian" and
> > "upstream" branches are the *minimum* required information however.
>
> That sounds to me like a
hi raphael,
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 08:10:21AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, sean finney wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:29:35PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Is there actually packages that does not use debconf ?
> >
> > dpkg...
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:29:35PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Is there actually packages that does not use debconf ?
dpkg...
sean
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.0.1
Severity: normal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
hi,
i'm giving some TLC to fbpager a workspace/desktop pager for the fluxbox
window manager. while updating to the latest Standards-Version, menu-policy
and lintian cleanliness, i have stumble
hi marcin,
On Tuesday 24 July 2007 09:28:09 pm Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I hope this is the right list to ask on.
i would suggest debian-devel, or possibly even debian-mentors.
> Now I need to decide what the relationship between these two should be.
I would suggest at least a Recommends
On Tuesday 26 June 2007 18:15:47 Neil McGovern wrote:
> Great :) Not sure if these changes need re-seconding now though.
well, if there's any possibility that they do, consider them re-seconded :)
sean
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
hi -devel and -policy,
this hasn't been discussed in a while, and i'm wondering if we could
come to an agreement to clarify policy on the matter. currently, policy
states:
currently, policy (10.4) states:
...The standard shell interpreter /bin/sh can be a symbolic
link to any
hi fergal,
On Sat, 2006-12-02 at 04:51 +, Fergal Daly wrote:
> The document above says that "start" should "start the service" but it
> seems there are quite a few debian packages where this does not work
> because their initscripts contain things like
>
> ---
> test -f /etc/default/fetchmail
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 19:41 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here's a proposed patch. What do people think about this approach? I
> know there was an inconclusive Policy discussion a while back about how
> best to deal with this issue. As you can tell from this patch, I favor
> the approach of docum
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 03:07 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> What's the importance of Debian Policy if RM team can do whatever they
> want? How we can ensure that Debian has the minimal quality when it's
> get release?
the change would make it reflect the fact that this is already the
reality--that
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 18:54 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I don't think it's a good idea to change the policy manual for every release
> > to match release RC policy. In current policy it's clear that it's a bug
> > that
> > should be fixed in the package and I'm sure it will become release cri
cc'ing debian-policy for their feedback...
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 12:21:10PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * martin f. krafft:
>
> > Thanks to the work of our DPL Anthony "aj" Towns (and all the other
> > people who have worked on this without my knowledge), I am happy to
> > announce that dak,
hey joey,
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 02:51:50PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> AFAIK apache2 is the only web server package that allows scriptaliases
> to be added to it in a policy conformant way (by dropping config file
> snippets into /etc/apache2/conf.d/. Other web servers that support
> scriptalias,
hey joey (et al),
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 01:33:58PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> sean finney wrote:
> > this is a surprising change. guess that's what i get for not being
> > subscribed to -policy :)
>
> Not really, it was last discussed on -policy in 2003, so being
hi,
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 03:02:49PM +0200, Alexis Sukrieh wrote:
> W: bugzilla: file-in-usr-lib-cgi-bin usr/lib/cgi-bin/bugzilla/
> N:
> N: Packages shipping web server CGI files should install them in
> N: /usr/lib/cgi-lib, not in /usr/lib/cgi-bin. This is done to avoid
> N: co
at by sending it to debian-policy i might get some
additional feedback.
thanks,
sean
ps - please cc me, i'm not on debian-policy
- Forwarded message from sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 03:19:58 -0500
From: sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 02:28:01PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> So, the common sense says /usr/bin is ok for gettext.sh, not the opposite.
s,common sense,convenience for the author/maintainer,
> If you want to make policy that /usr/bin should only contain executables,
> go ahead, make a policy p
36 matches
Mail list logo
