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

Missing Build-Conflicts for non-clean build environments: RC? (was: Re: Bug#508947: Lowering severity)

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 09:04:13 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:

> * David Paleino | 2008-12-19 22:58:07 [+0100]:
> >Hello,
> >trying to look at RC bugs, I just stumbled upon this one.
> >IMHO it's not severity serious, since binary packages are built in clean
> >chroots. Hence you don't have wx2.6 installed, but just the Build-Deps, i.e.
> >wx2.8.
> >It's still "important", because it fails on non-clean chroots, i.e. when
> >building on "normal" boxes.
> I don't agree with your arguing. Serious is defined as "severe violation
> of Debian policy (roughly, it violates a "must" or "required"
> directive)". Debian policy 7.7 says: 
> |Build-Depends, Build-Conflicts
> |    The Build-Depends and Build-Conflicts fields must be satisfied when
> |any of the following targets is invoked: build, clean, binary,
> |binary-arch, build-arch, build-indep and binary-indep.
> It does not mention a clean chroot. Afaik it also violates the policy if
> a packages build in fully installed chroot ist linked against
> more/different libraries than the same package build in a clean chroot.

What you're quoting is not relevant: that deals with *satisfying*
Build-{Depends,Conflicts}, not what to put in there.

The relevant section is IMHO:

| Source packages that require certain binary packages to be installed or absent
| at the time of building the package can declare relationships to those binary
| packages.
| This is done using the Build-Depends, Build-Depends-Indep, Build-Conflicts
| and Build-Conflicts-Indep control file fields. 

See *at the time of building the package*. This is clearly on buildds (thus, on
clean chroots, even if not specified) for arch: any packages, and on
maintainer's box for arch: all packages (suppposing one would upload source +
binary packages) -- and, in fact, it's maintainer's duty to check FTBFS bugs on
clean sid pbuilder/cowbuilder environments.

Thus, my argument is still there.

Bringing this on -devel, so to have suggestions from other people as well :)


 . ''`.  Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
 : :'  : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
 `. `'`  GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page
   `-   2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: