[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: FTBFS for Archetecture all package (Bug#167049)



On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 11:01:55AM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Thank you for your comments.
> 
> On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 01:48:51PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > I'm not sure. Could you please provide policy chapter and verse?
> 
> Policy 2.4.2 Package relationship only states "should be specified" in
> the first paragraph.  Serious is defined as a severe violation of Debian
> policy (that is, it violates a "must" or "required" directive)....
> (See my original post)

This section also states

     If build-time dependencies are specified, it must be possible to build
     the package and produce working binaries on a system with only
     essential and build-essential packages installed and also those
     required to satisfy the build-time relationships (including any
     implied relationships).

If you have any Build-Depends (and I'm getting the sense you do), then
the bug is serious (because it is a *must* section). Plus, as an added
benefit, regardless of policy, there is always the tradition of filing
FTBFS bugs as serious (I've seen many Debian manuals that say to do so).
Also, the BTS docs say that a serious bug is one that

	is a severe violation of Debian policy (that is, it violates a "must"
	or "required" directive), or, in the package maintainer's opinion,
	makes the package unsuitable for release.

I may not be the package maintainer, but I certainly think that a
package that cannot be built from source is unsuitable for release.

-- 
Brian M. Carlson <karlsson@hal-pc.org> <http://decoy.wox.org/~bmc> 0x560553E7
Let the meek inherit the earth -- they have it coming to them.
		-- James Thurber

Attachment: pgpsxP70aMMby.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: