Bug#998282: Please make Section a required field for the source paragraph in d/control

[David Bremner <david@tethera.net>]

Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> writes:

>
> The installable stanzas in d/control (called "binary package
> paragraphs" in policy) inherit the Section field from the source
> paragraph. There is no reason to provide inheritance the other way
> around.
>
> Also, sources may not build successfully on all architectures. People
> do not often use Debian's sources directly, but we distribute them
> just like installation packages.
>
> The Section field in the source paragraph (called "general paragraph"
> in policy) reveals important clues about the DFSG-classification of
> the sources. It should be required. Policy section 5.2 presently shows
> the field as merely recommended. Thanks!
>

Hi Felix;

So, you probably know my biases. I think Debian would be better off if
we eliminated sections, with potential exceptions for where they are
needed by tooling (debian-installer might be such a case, it isn't
really clear to from the discussion I read so far). I would be fine with
mandating some indication of debian archive area in the source as well
as binary packages. That's just my personal view, and probably doesn't
(and shouldn't) weigh too much in the policy review.

On the other hand, what is not just my personal opinion is that policy
should follow practice, and policy changes should generally not make a
large number of packages buggy. So, do you have some numbers for how
widespread the adoption of this idea is? Usually I would suggest that
someone with an idea like this (assuming some degree of project
concensus) should start with a lintian check. I assume you are aware of
this, but you don't mention in your message whether such a check exists,
and if not why not (does it not make sense for some reason?).

Finally, I would suggest you consult with the ftp-master team about how
they feel about the potential extra work managing overrides for source
packages, and if there are any technical/process issues preventing
adoption of this policy.