headers
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl | 22 Jul 00:38
Favicon

Debian Project News - July 21st, 2008

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debian Project News
http://www.debian.org/News/project/
Debian Project News - July 21st, 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome to this year's 7th issue of DPN, the newsletter for the Debian
community.
Some of the topics covered in this issue:

 * Updates to the Lenny release process
 * Debian-installer to support loading of external firmwares
 * Best practice for debug packages
 * ... and much more.

Updates to the Lenny release process

Luk Claes sent a [1]release update regarding the upcoming stable
release Debian 5.0 "Lenny". An important part is, that starting with
next week, the transition of packages from the unstable to the testing
branch will be frozen to concentrate on: fixing the remaining bugs. He
further reports on the different release goals, which he sees in good
shape, but is a bit worried about the architecture qualification pages
on wiki.debian.org, which still miss a lot of information. Porters
should provide status information on these pages, so it's easier for
the release team to inform themselves about the status of different
hardware architectures.

  1: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/07/msg00005.html
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Charles Plessy | 22 Jul 03:25
Favicon

Re: Debian Project News - July 21st, 2008

Le Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 12:40:51AM +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl a écrit :
> Best practice for debug packages
> 
> Joerg Jaspert [8]added that the priority of such debug
> packages should be extra and that they should be in the same section as
> the parent package.
> 
>   8: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/07/msg00205.html

Hi all,

here is the relevant extract:

>> *) I assume that the priority of -dbg packages is extra
> 
> s/I assume that//
> s/$/!/

Does it mean that not being extra is a bug, that the persons with
write access to the `override' file will systematicly set the priority
of -dbg packages to `extra', or both?

How can we document all of this better? Would a bug against the Policy
be appropriate?

Have a nice day,

--

-- 
Charles Plessy
Debian-Med packaging team,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Joerg Jaspert | 22 Jul 18:31
Favicon

Re: Debian Project News - July 21st, 2008

On 11454 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:

>>> *) I assume that the priority of -dbg packages is extra
>> s/I assume that//
>> s/$/!/

> Does it mean that not being extra is a bug, that the persons with
> write access to the `override' file will systematicly set the priority
> of -dbg packages to `extra', or both?

Both. And they should be extra, unless i missed some when doing it
months ago (or if one of us missed it during NEW processing).

> How can we document all of this better? Would a bug against the Policy
> be appropriate?

Sure.

--

-- 
bye, Joerg
<vorlon> since anyone who can get along with elmo must *surely* be part of
         the cabal.
<Overfiend> vorlon: Not true.  I've gotten along with elmo from time to time.
            We're just both ashamed of it.
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Charles Plessy | 23 Jul 03:51
Favicon

Re: Debian Project News - July 21st, 2008

Le Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 06:31:05PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
> On 11454 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:
> 
> > Does it mean that not being extra is a bug, that the persons with
> > write access to the `override' file will systematicly set the priority
> > of -dbg packages to `extra', or both?
> 
> Both. And they should be extra, unless i missed some when doing it
> months ago (or if one of us missed it during NEW processing).

Thanks for the answer, I just opened a bug on the Policy to reflect
this.

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=491985

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Thomas Viehmann | 23 Jul 10:21

Bug#491985: Debian Project News - July 21st, 2008

Charles Plessy wrote:
> Thanks for the answer, I just opened a bug on the Policy to reflect
> this.
> 
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=491985
I do have to agree with Russ that policy isn't the place for this.

Why do you need to sprinkle information there instead of enhancing the
documentation on the subject already in the developer's reference?

Kind regards

T.
--

-- 
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Charles Plessy | 24 Jul 02:26
Favicon

Re: Debian Project News - July 21st, 2008

Le Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:21:27AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann a écrit :
> 
> Why do you need to sprinkle information there instead of enhancing the
> documentation on the subject already in the developer's reference?

Dear Thomas,

I need to eat, drink, breeze, but I do not feel a particular need to
sprinke information.  I am of course very open to enhance the
developper's reference.

Here is a question to answer your question:

  Why does the FTP team need to override the priority of -dbg packages
  to `extra'?

The answer to this will tell where the information belongs.

I think that at some point of my Debian studies I was told that the
`overrides' system was a security device to prevent DDs to abuse the
Debian archive by uploading packages with a priority too high. Then I
thought that if the -dbg packages need a special attention compared to
the many other packages that are in extra but shouldn't or vice-versa,
then the requirement was a `must' and that `musts' are better in the
Policy than in the Reference.

Apparently, the Priority: and Section: fields in the source packages are
only informational and the `overrides' file is the authoritative
reference, because the role of the FTP team is to manage priorities and
sections and ensure archive consistency.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane