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

Bug#374029: Fixing inconsisten and unusefull Build-Depends/Conflicts definition

On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 10:50:46AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> writes:
> > Sbuild explicitely, by design, only looks at build-depends. So in order
> > for build-depends to be useful at this time if you want a package to
> > build, you need to list mostly everything in build-depends right now
> > anyway.
> Isn't it sbuild's job to comply with policy, not the other way round?

No. Policy is not a stick to beat people with. Our Policy document is
not flawless, and errors have been known to occur in Policy before.

While an inconsistency between Policy and an individual package is
usually a bug in the package rather than a bug in Policy, the same is
not true for highly influential implementations of whatever Policy
happens to say; e.g., if the definition of the dpkg file format in
policy differs from the actual implementation in dpkg, then we usually
consider Policy to be either outdated or buggy, since in that particular
case, stuff was written for Policy to document existing practice to
people not familiar with the dpkg innards.

The same is true for buildd/sbuild and build-dependencies; since
build-dependencies were defined in Debian to make autobuilding possible,
it would be madness to require that buildd and sbuild jump through every
hoop that a high enough number of developers (i.e., 5) can come up with
and get through the policy process.

Therefore, if the implementation of sbuild differs from whatever Policy
happens to claim, then Policy is simply wrong.

Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: