Re: serious bugs because of missing build depends
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 04:18:35AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 02:46:13AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > > bug reports. In the meantime, perhaps lintian should warn if there is
> > > no Build-Depends(-Indep) line, seeing that most packages will need one
> > > (for debhelper, if nothing else).
> >
> > And the fact that the request to change build-depends to a "must" has been
> > already seconded at least twice (wait the bts to catch up, some of the
> > seconds have not hit it yet), and needs only a bit of cooking time to make
> > sure nobody objects to make it into policy proper...
>
> It is not a reasonably goal for woody so serious bugs as in RC should
> not be filed for things that are not currently RC.
If the package fails to autobuild, it is a serious bug, IMO. That fails
current policy.
The reason I file serious bugs is so I don't have to manually install
build-deps for > 100 packages for sid.
Most of these packages coming across are either new or uploads of older
packages (I don't retro-actively do builds), so they should be updating
to current policy anyway, and adding Build-Depends.
I guess my concern would be to state that a) NEW packages must comply
with current policy, and b) updated packages done by the maintainer
(NMU's should not have to abide) should comply with the latest policy.
Ben
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: