Bug#1027832: marked as done (debian-policy: Please clarify that priority required packages are not automatically build essential)
Your message dated Wed, 4 Jan 2023 22:20:46 +0100
with message-id <[🔎] f870628b-eadf-6931-1ef8-e946e7c63025@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#1027832: debian-policy: Please clarify that priority required packages are not automatically build essential
has caused the Debian Bug report #1027832,
regarding debian-policy: Please clarify that priority required packages are not automatically build essential
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.)
--
1027832: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1027832
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.6.2.0
Severity: wishlist
Hello. This is an attempt to put the basis for fixing this bug:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=837060
As an example, packages tzdata, mount or e2fsprogs are not build-essential
and afaik have not been for a long time, but there are still people who
believe that they are build-essential for the mere fact that they are
priority:required.
Therefore I think a clarification would be useful to clear those kind
of misconceptions.
Proposed text, to be added after the paragraph which defines build essential
based on the Hello World example:
----------------------------------------------------------
From this definition it follows that packages of required priority are not
necessarily build essential, as it is possible for some them not to be
needed at all to compile, link and put in a Debian package a Hello World
program written in C or C++.
----------------------------------------------------------
Next step would be to add a paragraph saying tools like debootstrap when used
to create chroots for building (i.e. "buildd" profile in deboostrap) should try
to keep the list of installed packages as minimal as possible, as far as
doing so does not become disruptive (for example, apt is technically not
build-essential but it is required to install the build-dependencies).
Thanks.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
El 4/1/23 a las 19:28, Sam Hartman escribió:
"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <sanvila@debian.org> writes:
Santiago> I think you can't really estimate such thing. You seem to
Santiago> imply that we have been allowing packages with missing
Santiago> build-dependencies for a long time, but that's not
Santiago> accurate. The *buildds* have been allowing packages with
Santiago> missing build-dependencies for a long time, but I have
Santiago> been reporting those bugs for a long time as well.
Thanks for the additional information.
You have not changed my mind.
I would prefer to solve this situation by increasing the build essential
set based on what I know today.
This bug report was a request to clarify policy without altering it, for those
who don't understand "packages required to build a hello world program" which
is already in policy.
But I'm starting to feel uncomfortable with the fact that the bug report is actually
being used to propose a policy change, which was never the intent, as it's something
completely different.
I fully respect those who want to change policy regarding the build-essential definition,
but I find it not appropriate to do that in this report, which was merely asking for
a clarification of current policy.
Therefore I withdraw my suggestion that current policy should be clarified by closing this bug,
as there seems not to be a consensus that it needs a clarification, and I respectfully request
that those willing to change the build-essential definition do so in another bug report.
Thanks.
--- End Message ---
Reply to: