Le Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 01:21:51AM -0400, Michael Gilbert a écrit :
>
> Think about it this way. Say the remote firmware files that getweb
> currently fetches were instead put in a package called
> foo2zjs-nonfree. That package would (of course) have to be located in
> non-free, and any packages
Michael Gilbert writes:
> The important consequence of a potential policy change/clarification
> here, is that pushing these oddballs out of main solves all of the
> problems: security authenticity/integrity, non-freeness, brokenness,
> trustworthiness, etc. They're all good qualities that would
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Gilbert writes:
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>> I think you're in the "rough" of "rough consensus."
>
>> It takes some moxie to put a dent into the status quo. If that's rough,
>> so be it. I try my best
Michael Gilbert writes:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think you're in the "rough" of "rough consensus."
> It takes some moxie to put a dent into the status quo. If that's rough,
> so be it. I try my best to be kind and constructive though. Really
> I've tried to
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Gilbert writes:
>
>> Opinions are malleable (wrong and right are all a matter of
>> perspective). This is something sufficiently nuanced that I think its
>> worth sufficient pondering to really get it right. If you haven't spent
>> mu
Russ Allbery writes:
> Here is the complete text [of the current Policy §2.2.1]:
>
> The main archive area comprises the Debian distribution. Only the
> packages in this area are considered part of the distribution.
> None of the packages in the main archive area require software
>
Michael Gilbert writes:
> Opinions are malleable (wrong and right are all a matter of
> perspective). This is something sufficiently nuanced that I think its
> worth sufficient pondering to really get it right. If you haven't spent
> much time pondering those nuances, it's easy to assume perspe
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Gilbert writes:
>
>> I understand this section very well, and even with that lead-in wording,
>> I contend that sufficient ambiguity remains that additional clarity is
>> needed. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been so difficult to deal w
Michael Gilbert writes:
> I understand this section very well, and even with that lead-in wording,
> I contend that sufficient ambiguity remains that additional clarity is
> needed. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been so difficult to deal with bug
> #449497, which essentially turned into a wontfix.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Gilbert writes:
>
>> This is a bit off-topic for the bug report, but while you're thinking
>> about rewording this section, it may be prescient to consider
>> non-explicit dependencies.
>
>> For example, the getweb script in foo2jzs
Michael Gilbert writes:
> This is a bit off-topic for the bug report, but while you're thinking
> about rewording this section, it may be prescient to consider
> non-explicit dependencies.
> For example, the getweb script in foo2jzs fetches non-free firmware
> files, yet seems to be currently pe
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> This is the bug concerning the wording in current Policy 2.2.1:
>
> In addition, the packages in main
>
> * must not require a package outside of main for compilation or
> execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends",
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> No, that's not correct. If a package is already installed but a newever
> version is available, then this will be upgraded if the priority is 1.
> It just won't be selected for installation automatically.
>
> This is how experimental works: packages in
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 06:19:47PM -0400, David Prévot wrote:
> Le 12/03/2012 13:44, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 01:56:17AM +0100, Carsten Hey wrote:
>
> >> […] how a possible mechanism to let users choose between "always prefer
> >> free packages" and "follow the maintai
Le 12/03/2012 13:44, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 01:56:17AM +0100, Carsten Hey wrote:
>> […] how a possible mechanism to let users choose between "always prefer
>> free packages" and "follow the maintainer's recommendation, even it
>> a non-free package is preferred" could
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 01:56:17AM +0100, Carsten Hey wrote:
> This reads like you ask if "main | non-free" should be allowed. In my
> opinion, the question should rather be if it must be "main | non-free"
> or if both, "main | non-free" and "non-free | main", should be allowed
> and how a possibl
* Russ Allbery [2012-01-05 09:25 -0800]:
> This is the bug concerning the wording in current Policy 2.2.1:
>
> In addition, the packages in main
>
> * must not require a package outside of main for compilation or
>execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends",
>
This is the bug concerning the wording in current Policy 2.2.1:
In addition, the packages in main
* must not require a package outside of main for compilation or
execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends",
"Recommends", or "Build-Depends" relationship on a no
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 09:43:34AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:49:18AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > Where does policy define the concept of 'non-default alternative' for
> > dependencies ?
>
> This is implied by 7.5:
>
> If you want to specify which of a
Bill Allombert writes:
> Where does policy define the concept of 'non-default alternative' for
> dependencies ?
Good point. I think this should be more explicit, not just for this but
because it's a common topic elsewhere (such as with the default MTA) and
is something packagers should keep in
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:49:18AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:45:49AM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > On Monday 19 July 2010 11:26:38 Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> > > index 0b3c1a1..06c1fdc 100644
> > > --- a/policy.sgml
> > >
Bill Allombert writes:
> Does that allow to add dependencies on packages that exist only in
> non-Debian repositories as 'non-default alternative' ?
I hope so; it's common practice for packages that require out-of-tree
kernel modules, for instance.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:26:38AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 0b3c1a1..06c1fdc 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -476,9 +476,12 @@
>
> must not require a package outside of main
> for com
Bill Allombert writes:
> For my part I would prefer to keep the current policy and use Provides
> for non-free software.
I think this would be worse from the perspective of not accidentally
getting non-free software. Isn't the package installed by dependency when
multiple packages Provide that
On Thursday 22 July 2010 04:49:18 Bill Allombert wrote:
> For my part I would prefer to keep the current policy and use Provides for
> non-free software.
I see two problems with that, and I actually object to that idea:
a) Provides means, in this case the non-free package, has a compatible
inter
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:45:49AM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> On Monday 19 July 2010 11:26:38 Russ Allbery wrote:
> > diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> > index 0b3c1a1..06c1fdc 100644
> > --- a/policy.sgml
> > +++ b/policy.sgml
> > @@ -476,9 +476,12 @@
> >
> >
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:26:38AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > This particular wording allows for the non-free package to be first in
> > the list of alternatives, which I think is clearly incorrect. The
> > intent AIUI is to avoid installation of a package in main ev
On Monday 19 July 2010 11:26:38 Russ Allbery wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 0b3c1a1..06c1fdc 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -476,9 +476,12 @@
>
> must not require a package outside of main
> for compilation o
Steve Langasek writes:
> This particular wording allows for the non-free package to be first in
> the list of alternatives, which I think is clearly incorrect. The
> intent AIUI is to avoid installation of a package in main ever causing a
> non-free package to be pulled in automatically, regardl
Hi Bill,
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 02:15:19PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> I disagree that adding an explicit allowance for alternative is not a
> normative change.
>
> The old wording (the package must not declare a "Depends", "Recommends", or
> "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-main packa
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:23:02AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 3e99099..9fe7158 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -476,9 +476,11 @@
>
> must not require a package outside of main
> for com
Dear all,
After reading the answer of Russ in message #34, that because of virtual
packages the dependancy graph is not closed anyway, and (in answer to Bill's
comments message #17) considering that non-free packages are anyway advertised
in the main section through Suggests dependancies, I second
Charles Plessy writes:
> I also have mixed feelings about aligning Policy on current practices:
> on systems where the contrib and non-free archives are not enabled, this
> brings unavailable packages in the part of the dependancy graph that is
> supposed to be closed in stable releases. However,
Le Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:23:02AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 3e99099..9fe7158 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -476,9 +476,11 @@
>
> must not require a package outside of main
> f
Bill Allombert writes:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:31:57AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I'm committing the following change for the next release which differs
>> slightly from Raphael's in that it uses better markup for the field
>> names (fixing an existing minor inconsistency) and doesn't spe
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:31:57AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Raphael Geissert writes:
>
> > I see a couple of issues with the current section 2.2.1 "The main
> > archive area:"
>
> > a) It does not list neither Pre-Depends nor Build-depends-indep.
> > b) It does not take into consideration OR
Raphael Geissert writes:
> I see a couple of issues with the current section 2.2.1 "The main
> archive area:"
> a) It does not list neither Pre-Depends nor Build-depends-indep.
> b) It does not take into consideration ORed dependencies.
> Point a) can be fixed by listing those two fields and ma
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.4
Tags: patch
Hi,
I see a couple of issues with the current section 2.2.1 "The main archive
area:"
a) It does not list neither Pre-Depends nor Build-depends-indep.
b) It does not take into consideration ORed dependencies.
Point a) can be fixed by listing tho
38 matches
Mail list logo
