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

Bug#391240: marked as done (Clean target should remove created files outside the build directory)

Your message dated Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:44:51 -0700
with message-id <87o9rlx51o.fsf@iris.silentflame.com>
and subject line Closing inactive Policy bugs
has caused the Debian Bug report #391240,
regarding Clean target should remove created files outside the build directory
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
391240: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=391240
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.1
Severity: normal
Tags: patch

Quoting Steve Langasek, from bug report #388399:

,----
| a package's clean target has to undo
| everything done by the build and binary targets, which is not possible if
| it's leaving cache files around on the system.  (The fact that buildds don't
| actually call the clean target after calling the binary target is secondary,
| really; the point is that package builds shouldn't be writing to the user's
| home directory in the first place and *requiring* any cleanup, though I
| can't find any reference to this in the current version of policy.)
`----

"writing to the home directory" also includes creation of dotfiles,
which some programs do when used the first time (and they keep "copies"
of the site-wide conffiles there, which are not subject to conffile
updating).  The problem with the TeX font cache has actually caused a
FTBFS bug, and I've documented it in the TeX policy draft (pending
upload).  However, many packages create documentation without directly
using TeX, and therefore won't find the information in the TeX policy. 

Therefore, I suggest the following patch to the Debian policy:

--- debian-policy-3.7.2.2/policy.sgml.orig	2006-10-05 18:52:02.000000000 +0200
+++ debian-policy-3.7.2.2/policy.sgml	2006-10-05 18:58:19.000000000 +0200
@@ -1882,7 +1882,15 @@
 		and <tt>binary</tt> targets may have had, except
 		that it should leave alone any output files created in
 		the parent directory by a run of a <tt>binary</tt>
-		target.
+		target<footnote>
+		  This includes files that are generated outside the
+		build directory, e.g. dotfiles in $HOME (if that
+		exists) or TeX font cache data.  Note that TeX is
+		often called indirectly to create PDF or PS versions
+		of documentation.  Hints for cleaning up the TeX font
+		cache are in the TeX policy draft in
+		the <package>tex-common</package>  package.
+		</footnote>.
 	      </p>
 
 	      <p>


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (99, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.17-2-686
Locale: LANG=de_DE@euro, LC_CTYPE=de_DE@euro (charmap=ISO-8859-15)

-- no debconf information

-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
control: user debian-policy@packages.debian.org
control: usertag -1 +obsolete
control: tag -1 +wontfix

Russ Allbery and I did a round of in-person bug triage at DebConf17 and
we are closing this bug as inactive.

The reasons for closing fall into the following categories, from most
frequent to least frequent:

- issue is appropriate for Policy, there is a consensus on how to fix
  the problem, but preparing the patch is very time-consuming and no-one
  has volunteered to do it, and we do not judge the issue to be
  important enough to keep an open bug around;

- issue is appropriate for Policy but there does not yet exist a
  consensus on what should change, and no recent discussion.  A fresh
  discussion might allow us to reach consensus, and the messages in the
  old bug are unlikely to help very much; or

- issue is not appropriate for Policy.

If you feel this bug is still relevant and want to restart the
discussion, you can re-open the bug.  However, please consider instead
opening a new bug with a message that summarises and condenses the
previous discussion, updates the report for the current state of Debian,
and makes clear exactly what you think should change.

A lot of these old bugs have long side tangents and numerous messages,
and that old discussion is not necessarily helpful for figuring out what
Debian Policy should say today.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: