Reviewing policy bugs
Perusuant to my message earlier, there are the first set of
pending bug reports.
* #114920: [PROPOSAL] remove foolish consistency in perl module names
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Joey Hess <email@example.com>; 334
There was a long discussion, and I think most objections were
were addressed. An interesting point was that debian packages are
typically named after the CPAN _distribution name_, not the _module
name_; and this needs be fixed in Perl policy to reflect reality.
We need to modify the proposal to require the full name (as
put in provides) to be also mentioned in the long description, and
then perhaps perl policy can be changed? Are there any objections to
* #115438: [PROPOSAL] addition of new menu tag for kde menu removal
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: "Ivan E. Moore II"
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; 329 days old.
From what I can gather, this proposal calls for the menu
system honouring either a kderemove or a removeonwm tag, and not
installing duplicate entries; however, as I understand it, there is
no code, so this seems to be in the design phase.
I think this is not suitable for inclusion in policy until we
have modified the menu package (isn't it being rewritten or
something?). Should be retitled PENDING, and severity lowered to
wishlist or something.
* #119821: [PROPOSAL] Postscript files requirements
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Yann Dirson <email@example.com>;
295 days old.
Would make shipping only 2-up versions of postscript docs
illegal. Gathered no seconds. I am not sure we need to make this
policy. If the documentation is unreadable, bugs should be
filed. Policy is, umm, not a stick. or sumpn.
I am going to close this bug.
* #123074: adding gfdl(7) and gpl(7)
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Matthias Klose
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; 272 days old.
Also gathered no seconds.
I think licenses should be added to common licenses when they
are indeed common. Roughly speaking, I would think that one needs to
have at least a 5% share before one dubs a license common, don't you
think? In any case, gdfl does not yet qualify (even discounting
rumblings I heard regarding whether it is deemed free enough).
I am going to close this bug.
* #128681: Debian Menu Policy
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Ben Bucksch <email@example.com>;
239 days old.
Umm. this bug report requires that a new. logical, consistent
menu policy be created ;-).
I am going to lower severity to wishlist until there is some
meat to this report.
* #128734: debian-policy: criteria for Games/Puzzles is not precise
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Yann Dirson <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
239 days old.
Yet another menu classification bug. I am going to lower
severity to wishlist until there is some meat to this report. Perhaps
merge with 128681.
* #129375: debian-policy: typo/logic error in debconf spec
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Wichert Akkerman
<email@example.com>; 235 days old.
Umm. This seems like an out right bug in policy (though I
don't yet grok debconf). I guess policy needs to be fixed.
* #131583: debian-policy: packaging-manual section 7.1 missing from
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Gergely Nagy
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; 220 days old.
* #148194: debian-policy: Clarification needed regarding multi-line
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: "John R. Daily"
<email@example.com>; 104 days old.
Hmm. I guess this could fall under the specifications bit. I
would like the input of the dpkg folks to figure out what the format
specification for the input files that packages need to create; and
include them into policy.
* #132069: sysnews: Attempt to be FHS compliant breaks compatibility
with System V standard
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Dominik Kubla
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; 216 days old.
Oh, great. The FHS and the SysV standards are incompatible.
Has someone followed this up with the FHS folks?
* #132767: debsum support should be mandatory
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Matthew Wilcox
<email@example.com>; 212 days old.
From the report itself:
> All rpm-based systems support rpm --verify. Having
> debsums support optional makes debian an inferior
> distribution in this aspect. Making DEBIAN/md5sums
> required rather than optional would rectify this
debsums is a poor and incomplete solution. The best
thing is to have dpkg compute+store the same data when
the package is unpacked on the fly. Then we don't bloat
the archive, the feature can be turned on/off, etc.
From the debsums man page:
"debsums ‐‐generate=nocheck ‐sp /var/cache/apt/archives";
/etc/apt/apt.conf fragment to generate missing checksums
I am going to close this report.
* #143941: define a usable character set for description/maintainer name
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Junichi Uekawa
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; 139 days old.
Hmm. Seems like we want to support utf-8 for the future,
though perhaps that can wait until we get tool support for
that. dpkg-query should start supporting it soon. I guess we should
shelve this until we have better support from the tool chain. (we do
not have consensus, in any case)
I'll retitle this to PENDING and reduce severity to wishlist.
* #149709: [BUG] section 10.3.3 does not provide enough guidance for
package maintainers to use update-rc.d correctly
Package: debian-policy; Reported by: "Branden Robinson"
<email@example.com>; 88 days old.
Hmm. Part of this is a flaw in policy; the second part seems
like a dictum to how update-rc.d ought to behave. The former is under
the purview of policy, and shall be changed.
It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might be
wrong. Chris Torek
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C