On 2006-10-25, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[]
> +
> +For arch dependent packages, binary-arch must
> +exist, since it is used by the build daemons to auto
+*buld* packages. The binary-indep target should
> +also exist. If one
> 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 documenting the specific features that we require and
> assu
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 23:51 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Nov 06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Russ's patch is no good, at least, it does not address the problems I
> > have raised in the past.
> It's still better than what we have now, and solving parts of the
> problems
On Nov 06, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > + the -a and -o test operators
> > + must be supported
> Why is that needed ?
Because every modern shell which is not designed to be broken supports
them, and since they are in widespread use everywhere there is no reason
to no su
On Nov 06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russ's patch is no good, at least, it does not address the problems I
> have raised in the past.
It's still better than what we have now, and solving parts of the
problems is still better than waiting for the ultimate policy change
which
Russ's patch is no good, at least, it does not address the problems I
have raised in the past.
A Posix shell is allowed to have a builtin for ANY command without
restriction, and as long as the builtin has the behavior specified by
Posix for that command, it is a "Posix compatible shell."
For exa
I'd like to see this say something about what may be assumed of the
standard shell utilities, as well as the shell itself, and in
particular I'd like to see coreutils bug #339085 addressed [please see
the bug log for my personal very strong opinion on which way it should
be addressed].
zw
--
To
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 07:41:40PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> This flows from the Release policy. Not specifying /bin/bash
> >> in scripts is not considered a RC bug.
>
> > I can try to pro
* Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061106 04:41]:
> Here's a proposed patch. What do people think about this approach?
Sounds good, thanks for your work.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tr
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 Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 07:41:40PM -0800, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> + the -a and -o test operators
> + must be supported
Why is that needed ?
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 19:41:40 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
> + local to create a scoped variable must be
> + supported
Underspecified. local in dash and bash behave differently. In dash the
variable value from outer scope is retained, in bash it is not.
Bugs caused by this do
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This flows from the Release policy. Not specifying /bin/bash
>> in scripts is not considered a RC bug.
> I can try to propose better language for this. I think that using pure
> bash-specific cons
On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 12:58:34PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> If a csh script does not start
> with /bin/csh (or name some specific csh implementation; maybe there's an
> opportunity for wording improvement) or doesn't depend on c-shell, it's
> broken and won't work on a Debian system. That soun
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:03:11AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> @@ -113,36 +113,6 @@
> either. Please see for more information.
>
>
> -
> - In the normative part of this manual,
> - the words must, should and
> - may, and the adjectives required,
> -
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:01:32 +0200, Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Why do change the second and third must to a should?
>> If the script uses features from bash, and /bin/sh points to for
>> instance dash, it's going to break. So you eith
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:31:01AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 25 octobre 2006 à 01:03 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> > Here is a first draft of changes to the policy that I think
> > are required to bring ot closer in line with extant practice. I
> > removed portion
On Oct 26, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FWIW, I strongly disagree with these changes. The solution is to bring
> the release policy in line with the real policy, not the opposite.
Yes, and let's forget about this "reality" bullshit...
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description:
Le mercredi 25 octobre 2006 à 01:03 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> Here is a first draft of changes to the policy that I think
> are required to bring ot closer in line with extant practice. I
> removed portions from the policy that linked policy violations to bug
> severities, sinc
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:44:38 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:49:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > @@ -3195,8 +3112,8 @@
>> >
>> >Additionally, packages interacting with users using
>> >debconf in the postinst sc
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:44:53 +1000, Anthony Towns
said:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:20:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> The only normative words are MUST, SHOULD, MAY, and RECOMMENDED. I
>> am considering using upper case where we expect conformance.
> Didn't the definitions of MUST/SH
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:49:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > @@ -3195,8 +3112,8 @@
> >
> >Additionally, packages interacting with users using
> >debconf in the postinst script should
> > - install a config script in the control area,
> > -
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 10:39:14PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Roland Mas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061025 22:38]:
> > Luk Claes, 2006-10-25 18:51:26 +0200 :
> >
> > > It was not meant that way at all. I just don't like that people
> > > start to discuss topics that are long overdue near release ti
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:20:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The only normative words are MUST, SHOULD, MAY, and
> RECOMMENDED. I am considering using upper case where we expect
> conformance.
Didn't the definitions of MUST/SHOULD/MAY get removed in your patch though?
Cheers,
aj
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:39:14 +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Roland Mas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061025 22:38]:
>> Luk Claes, 2006-10-25 18:51:26 +0200 :
>>
>> > It was not meant that way at all. I just don't like that people
>> > start to discuss topics that are long overdue near
* Roland Mas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061025 22:38]:
> Luk Claes, 2006-10-25 18:51:26 +0200 :
>
> > It was not meant that way at all. I just don't like that people
> > start to discuss topics that are long overdue near release time...
>
> Topics that are long overdue should, by definition, be discuss
Luk Claes, 2006-10-25 18:51:26 +0200 :
> It was not meant that way at all. I just don't like that people
> start to discuss topics that are long overdue near release time...
Topics that are long overdue should, by definition, be discussed and
worked on *now*, regardless of whether "now" happens t
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:51:26 +0200, Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>>> On 10818 March 1977, Luk Claes wrote:
>>>
Can everyone please focus on the release and discuss things that
don't help to release on December 4th at all till af
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:49:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> > - Packages involving shared libraries should be split up into
> > + Packages involving shared libraries ought to be split up into
> > several binary packages. This section mostly deals with how
> > this se
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:01:32 +0200, Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:03:11AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Next, I removed clauses that said that all the requirements of
>> policy must be met for a package to be in main or contrib; we know
>> that is not true
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:51:26 +0200, Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> On 10818 March 1977, Luk Claes wrote:
>>
>>> Can everyone please focus on the release and discuss things that
>>> don't help to release on December 4th at all till after that date?
>>
>> No, the re
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:03:11AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Next, I removed clauses that said that all the requirements of
> policy must be met for a package to be in main or contrib; we know
> that is not true.
>
> I have replaced some uses of the word must when it was
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:08:36 +0200, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is there any harm in refining the changes and building consensus
>> over time? The change document can exist as a talking point, and
>> you can still come in and provide us
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10818 March 1977, Luk Claes wrote:
>
>> Can everyone please focus on the release and discuss things that don't help
>> to
>> release on December 4th at all till after that date?
>
> No, the release is no reason to stop everything else.
>
It was not meant that way at a
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Dear Luk,
>
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:16:59 +0200, Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> Hi,
>
>> Hi Manoj
>
>> Can everyone please focus on the release and discuss things that
>> don't help to release on December 4th at all till after th
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:35:07 -0300, Margarita Manterola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On 10/25/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have replaced some uses of the word must when it was intended to
>> be non-normative with alternate and equivalent wording, which makes
>> it easier t
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any harm in refining the changes and
> building consensus over time? The change document can exist as a
> talking point, and you can still come in and provide us your input
> when you have time (post etch).
Personally, I would see it as a
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:35:13 +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061025 08:04]:
>> [...]
> Manoj, I'm seriously asking you if we can delay this discussion
> until after Etch is out. I'm very interessted in takeing part in the
> discussion, but
On 10/25/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have replaced some uses of the word must when it was
intended to be non-normative with alternate and equivalent wording,
which makes it easier to grep for "must". This still needs to be
done for should (which I often replace
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand we need to make concessions towards a release (like
> concentrating on fixing bugs instead of introducing new major upstream
> changes) but it shouldn't block Debian's progress in all areas.
> You must understand that if Manoj is not fixing
On 10818 March 1977, Luk Claes wrote:
> Can everyone please focus on the release and discuss things that don't help to
> release on December 4th at all till after that date?
No, the release is no reason to stop everything else.
--
bye Joerg
Snow-Man: Please don't talk to me. You have demonstra
Hi,
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061025 08:04]:
> > [...]
>
> Manoj, I'm seriously asking you if we can delay this discussion until
> after Etch is out. I'm very interessted in takeing part in the
> discussion, but I really have already to ma
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061025 08:04]:
> [...]
Manoj, I'm seriously asking you if we can delay this discussion until
after Etch is out. I'm very interessted in takeing part in the
discussion, but I really have already to many open very urgent tasks at
my hands.
Cheers,
Andi
--
Dear Luk,
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:16:59 +0200, Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hi,
> Hi Manoj
> Can everyone please focus on the release and discuss things that
> don't help to release on December 4th at all till after that date?
> Thank you very much.
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Manoj
Can everyone please focus on the release and discuss things that don't help to
release on December 4th at all till after that date?
Thank you very much.
Luk
PS: For those people that seem to think they can't help: there is still a long
list of RC bugs, th
Hi,
Here is a first draft of changes to the policy that I think
are required to bring ot closer in line with extant practice. I
removed portions from the policy that linked policy violations to bug
severities, since this has been deemed controversial and a "bug" in
policy. Next, I rem
46 matches
Mail list logo
