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

Bug#819660: explicitly allow building automatic debug symbols packages not listed in control



Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hello,


The Policy implicitly indicates a source package should only build
binary packages listed in debian/control. At least, this is how
ftpmaster interprets §5.2, 5.4 and 5.6.19, when you look at the Reject
FAQ <https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html> (search for
“debian/control breakage #2”).

Now, this is quite not compatible with the new debug symbol packages
<https://wiki.debian.org/AutomaticDebugPackages> that are now
automatically created.


Since explicit is better than implicit, I think §5.2:

>The debian/control file contains the most vital (and
>version-independent) information about the source package and about the
>binary packages it creates.
>
>The first paragraph of the control file contains information about the
>source package in general. The subsequent sets each describe a binary
>package that the source tree builds.

could be completed by:

>[…]
>
>The first paragraph of the control file contains information about the
>source package in general. The subsequent sets each describe a binary
>package that the source tree builds. All the binary packages have a
>corresponding paragraph, except for the possible automatic debug
>packages that do not require one.

There may be better ways to phrase this, but I think there is still a
need for some clarification about this.


Regards,

- -- 
Tanguy


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=ZF0E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: