Re: Undeclared dependencies on tzdata
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 9:07 PM Santiago Vila <sanvila@debian.org> wrote:
>
> El 21/11/22 a las 3:19, Shengjing Zhu escribió:
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 12:03:40AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >> I've detected a bunch of Go packages which do not build from source because
> >> they use tzdata without a build-dependency.
> >>
> >> This will not happen if tzdata is installed by default, but such package is
> >> not really build-essential, so this is technically a FTBFS bug in a release
> >> architecture.
> >
> > tzdata's priority is required. Is this an effort to make tzdata optional?
>
> Being "priority: required", being "essential: yes", and being
> build-essential are all three different things.
>
> My intent is to keep stable free from FTBFS bugs, i.e. packages which do
> not follow this paragraph in policy:
>
> "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 and also those required to
> satisfy the build-time relationships (including any implied relationships)."
>
So I think we have different interpretations for the policy.
> As you suggest, maybe it would help if debootstrap did not install
> tzdata in the buildd profile (maybe I will file another bug for that),
> but this is completely orthogonal to my original aim, which is to have
> those bugs fixed in stable. That's why I asked for advice about the best
> way to achieve that. Can we continue on the go-pkg list?
>
I think it should be on debian-devel.
And if the consensus is that required packages should be explicit set
at build-depends. We should ensure buildd doesn't include them.
Otherwise we can only fix the packages you have listed today. More
packages may miss it tomorrow.
--
Shengjing Zhu
Reply to: