On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 09:58:46PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Josip Rodin wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 05:33:04PM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote: > > > I have received a serious bug report against vera for incomplete > > > build depends. > > Which IMHO is not serious as in release-critical. The inflated severities > > are an annoying waste of time. > Unfortunately, they are NOT inflated. "serious" is the correct severity for > a bug reporting that a package violates a 'must' rule in Debian policy. And > incorrect build-depends are just that. Can you point me to the exact section of policy where it's specified that the source package of an arch: all package must include a complete list of build dependencies in either of the Build-Depends-Indep: or Build-Depends: fields of the control file? I'm looking at section 7.6 of Debian Policy version 3.5.6.0 (the latest release, AFAIK), which reads: <snip> Relationships between source and binary packages - Build-Depends, Build-Depends-Indep, Build-Conflicts, Build-Conflicts-Indep A source package may declare a dependency or a conflict on a binary package, indicating which packages are required to be present on the system in order to build the binary packages from the source package. This is done with the control file fields Build-Depends, Build-Depends-Indep, Build-Conflicts and Build-Conflicts-Indep. The dependencies and conflicts they define must be satisfied (as defined earlier for binary packages) in order to invoke the targets in debian/rules, as follows: Build-Depends, Build-Conflicts The Build-Depends and Build-Conflicts fields must be satisfied when any of the following targets is invoked: build, binary, binary-arch and binary-indep. Build-Depends-Indep, Build-Conflicts-Indep The Build-Depends-Indep and Build-Conflicts-Indep fields must be satisfied when any of the following targets is invoked: binary and binary-indep. <snip> And nowhere in there can I see anything that justifies treating a missing Build-Depends-Indep as a serious bug. Is there a newer version of policy applicable to woody than the one in the debian-policy package? > Since we don't have that functionality, we have to downgrade such bugs to > 'important'... if aj says so, or the package maintainer and bug submitter > agree. But we are not 'undoing' an inflated severity when we do that. Unless I'm missing something wrt Policy, these /are/ inflated severities. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgp8lHxPqkfrU.pgp
Description: PGP signature