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

Time to drop debcheck on optional/extra and arch:all?

The distinction between optional and extra is commonly ignored and yet
debcheck continues to add reports to the PTS about packages which
have dependencies which crossover from optional into extra.

Do we care about any distinction between optional and extra any longer?
From previous conversations with some members of the ftp team, it seems
to be regarded as either irrelevant or historical legacy.

Is it in any way relevant to how Debian is installed, maintained or

If not, can we remove this feature from debcheck? 

Personally, I can't see that it's worth "fixing" the actual priorities
of packages which are priority optional but have dependencies on
packages which are priority extra. So shouldn't debcheck just not
report these "issues" any longer? Other priorities are probably worth
checking but IMHO optional and extra may as well be considered as a
single set within debcheck.

There's also the issue of debcheck handling of Arch:all packages which
depend on architecture-dependent packages with a limited set of
architectures. It isn't helpful for the PTS to have "issues" reported
about an Arch:all package on non-linux ports depending on a package
which is only available on linux:any. It seems that debcheck is taking
a very simplistic view of that and should really only report if an
architecture-dependent package depends on a package which is not
available on the same arch.

A QA nag tool which is so commonly ignored is possibly not even worth


Neil Williams

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: