Hello, On Thu 08 Nov 2018 at 02:51PM GMT, Ian Jackson wrote: > How about: > > Package builds MAY be affected, sometimes adversely, by the > installation of additional packages beyond the Build-Depends > and build-essential, subject to the following rules: > > Nature of package Effect Permitted > on build output > > Installed by default Any effect MUST NOT > with any Build-Depends "Installed by default" defers to apt's opinion of what gets installed by default. Policy should probably not do that, so we should refers to Depends and Recommends. > Part of any reasonble Additional SHOULD NOT > default install for features > development workstation > Build fails SHOULD NOT, > MUST Build-Conflict > > Builds broken MUST NOT > packages > > Other packages Additional MAY > features > > Build fails SHOULD NOT, > MUST Build-Conflict > > Builds broken MUST NOT > packages > > Or to put it another way: > > Package builds MAY be influenced by the presence in the build > environment of additional packages, beyond the Build-Depends and > build-essential. However: > > Additional packages MUST NOT have any effect other than either: > > (i) a failure of the build, in which case the additional packages > MUST be declared in Build-Conflicts); or > > (ii) output packages with additional features or functionality. > Such additional features MAY imply additional functional runtime > dependencies, which then SHOULD be represented in the output > packages' metadata. In this case the additional packages > SHOULD NOT be declared in Build-Conflicts. > > Additionally, in any case: additional packages which are installed by > default by apt when the build dependencies are installed MUST NOT > have any significant effect. Do we really want (ii)? It seems like a recipe for all sorts of confusion. Do any packages currently work like that? In order to implement something like this, we'd need to rebuild the archive on a "development workstation" to confirm we weren't making a lot of packages RC-buggy. (It is not clear to me that such packages would be considered by most Debian participants to be RC-buggy in advance of a Policy change like this one being proposed.) -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature