El 29/1/23 a las 9:56, Sebastian Ramacher escribió:
On 2023-01-28 15:55:05 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:Historically, we have not treated FTBFS bugs as falling into the category of mass bug filing or requiring this pre-discussion. Various folks have been mass-filing FTBFS bugs near the release freeze for many years now and they generally don't get a debian-devel discussion first.I don't think that those are comparable. Rebuilds with modified base chroots have been discussed here before filing bugs. [1] is one of the oldest examples I was able to find. Cheers [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/01/msg00869.html
There is a big difference between such experiment and what I do. Policy 4.2 starts by saying this: Source packages should specify which binary packages they require to be installed or not to be installed in order to build correctly. (I think it is because the "or not" part that Adrian thinks I'm trying to open a can of worms. But that's not the case). Policy follows: 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 [...] This is when we have a "must", in a clean chroot environment. So, there is a "must" to build in a completely clean environment, but there is not a "must" to build in a dirty environment. Therefore, I don't think it's fair at all to put both kind of environments in the same bag by calling them both "modified build environments". Thanks.