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

Bug#883233: marked as done (First footnote to section 7.1 should say which of Debian's autobuilders ignore alternative dependencies)

Your message dated Tue, 20 Sep 2022 20:15:16 -0700
with message-id <87sfklfmez.fsf@hope.eyrie.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#883233: First footnote to section 7.1 should say which of Debian's autobuilders ignore alternative dependencies
has caused the Debian Bug report #883233,
regarding First footnote to section 7.1 should say which of Debian's autobuilders ignore alternative dependencies
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.)


-- 
883233: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=883233
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.2.0
Severity: normal
User: debian-policy@packages.debian.org
Usertags: informative

On Thu, Nov 30 2017, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:

> Should [section 7.1, footnote 1] also make explicit which Debian
> suites have this restriction?
>
> I thought this rule also applied to backports having found [0] in a list
> archive search, and hence have been explicitly changing dependencies for
> backports [1] instead of using alternatives.

Yes, good point.  Backports autobuilders use --build-dep-resolver=aptitude
which (I believe) considers alternative dependencies.

> However after finding this proposal, I checked build logs, which
> suggest that sid (including -ports architectures) and stable do but
> backports doesn't.  (Though we should probably check that with someone
> who knows this better before writing it into Policy...)

Agreed, we need some clarity.

wanna-build team / Release Team / Backports Team: exactly which buildds
ignore alternative dependencies?  We want to include this in an
(existing) Policy footnote.

Thanks.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Version: 4.6.1.0

Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 30 2017, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:

>> Should [section 7.1, footnote 1] also make explicit which Debian
>> suites have this restriction?
>>
>> I thought this rule also applied to backports having found [0] in a list
>> archive search, and hence have been explicitly changing dependencies for
>> backports [1] instead of using alternatives.

> Yes, good point.  Backports autobuilders use --build-dep-resolver=aptitude
> which (I believe) considers alternative dependencies.

>> However after finding this proposal, I checked build logs, which
>> suggest that sid (including -ports architectures) and stable do but
>> backports doesn't.  (Though we should probably check that with someone
>> who knows this better before writing it into Policy...)

> Agreed, we need some clarity.

> wanna-build team / Release Team / Backports Team: exactly which buildds
> ignore alternative dependencies?  We want to include this in an
> (existing) Policy footnote.

I think they all do except for backports.  Subsequent to this bug being
filed, https://bugs.debian.org/999826 was filed and resulted in a change
that documented the backports behavior.

The current proposed patch to #968226 will hopefully further improve this
text, but I think the core of this bug was resolved by #999826.  I'm
therefore closing it as done in the upload that fixed that bug.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)              <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

--- End Message ---
Reply to: