Re: Please, minimize your build chroots
On Sat, 2023-01-28 at 16:32:17 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 01:59:40PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Unsupported by whom? What is supported or unsupported is explained in policy.
> > Policy says it must work. Therefore it should be supported (by fixing the bugs).
>
> Policy §2.5:
> # "required"
> # Packages which are necessary for the proper functioning of the
> # system (usually, this means that dpkg functionality depends on
> # these packages). Removing a "required" package may cause your
> # system to become totally broken and you may not even be able to use
> # "dpkg" to put things back, so only do so if you know what you are
> # doing.
As stated several times now this passage seems wrong, or inaccurate at
best. See #950440. And I don't see how tzdata would ever fall into
this definition even if that paragraph was correct. As mentioned
before, the tzdata package does not seem like a "required" package at
all, and this should be fixed by lowering its priority. Whether
debootstrap can be fixed to not use the Priority workaround, seem
orthogonal to the issue at hand.
> > That's a straw man. I'm not proposing anything of the sort. Policy says
> > packages must build when essential and build-essential packages
> > are installed (plus build-dependencies).
>
> Build-essential _packages_. Not the "build-essential" package which very
> clearly says its dependencies are purely informational.
It does not seem fair to argue both that the build-essential package is
just informational (when it's in fact the canonical declaration of what
is Build-Essential, and what every tool uses to install or check for the
Build-Essential package set), and then also argue that whatever
debootstrap installs (which is based both on build-essential plus a
workaround due to lack of proper dependency resolution) is the canonical
thing.
Regards,
Guillem
Reply to: