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

Bug#849851: [debian-policy] Document that rules clean target is not sufficient for removing dfsg problems



control: user debian-policy@packages.debian.org
control: usertag -1 +discussion

Hello Bastien,

On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 01:37:25PM +0100, Bastien ROUCARIÈS wrote:
> Following #849830 and generally source-is-missing lintian problems
> could you document in 4.9 Main building script: debian/rules that
> clean target must no be used for removing dfsg problem but the right
> tools is repack

I don't think that it should be a point of Policy that the rules clean
target is not to be used for this purpose, because it is entailed by
the ftp-master's interpretation of DFSG plus this sentence that we
already have in Policy:

    Every [source or binary] package in main must comply with the DFSG
    (Debian Free Software Guidelines).

However, as you say, we should document this to prevent others from
tripping over it.  As you suggest, such a note would need to refer to
repacking the tarball.  The Developer's Reference already contains a
discussion of repacking upstream tarballs, so perhaps this should go
there?

Or we could use a footnote to Policy.  I attach a patch doing that.

-- 
Sean Whitton
From 56fab75d2c803ae9afd8d2186613713b297f9138 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2017 10:10:20 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] add a footnote about the clean target and DFSG repacking

---
 policy.xml | 10 ++++++++++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)

diff --git a/policy.xml b/policy.xml
index 782bd88..303688b 100644
--- a/policy.xml
+++ b/policy.xml
@@ -2170,6 +2170,16 @@
               <literal>build</literal> has been invoked as root (since
               <literal>build</literal> may create directories, for
               example).
+              <footnote>
+                <para>
+                  The clean target should not be used to remove files
+                  in the source tree that are not compatible with the
+                  DFSG.  This is because the files would remain in the
+                  upstream tarball, and thus in the source package, so
+                  the source package would continue to violate DFSG.
+                  Instead, the upstream source should be repacked.
+                </para>
+              </footnote>
             </para>
           </listitem>
         </varlistentry>
-- 
2.11.0

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: