Re: Proposed mass bug filing: packages without support for build-arch and build-indep

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>]

Hi Lucas,

On 05/11/2021 21:22, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to propose a MBF with severity:serious for the above issue.
> build-arch and build-indep are required targets according to Debian
> Policy section 4.9.  This rule was introduced in Policy version 3.9.4,
> released in 2012.
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules
>
> There are 421 affected packages in unstable (389 in testing as of
> 2021-10-01).
> The list of affected packages according to lintian is
> https://lintian.debian.org/tags/debian-rules-missing-recommended-target
> A dd-list is included below.

Thanks for looking at this.

> Unfortunately this is only a warning in lintian, which might explain
> why so many packages are still affected.

lintian should move those targets to the debian-rules-missing-required-target tag.

> I have no strong feelings about this requirement, but I see it as a good
> opportunity to identify packages whose packaging probably need a
> refresh. Therefore it is a good target, especially at the beginning of a
> release cycle, to either update old cruft or get it removed from the
> next stable release.
>
> This topic was raised back in April on debian-qa@, and saw no
> objection back then. See
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2021/04/msg00014.html (the thread
> included other topics).
>
> The bug template I plan to use is included below.
>
> I would prefer to file bugs directly with severity:serious, but I'm fine
> with starting with severity:important and bumping severity after a month
> or two if the release team prefers it, of course.

I think severity serious is fine if you use an appropriate Version so that this 
won't block testing migration. I would still prefer if this was filed at 
important severity, and raised to serious after a month or so.

Cheers,
Emilio