Re: RC policy - editorial clarifications?
On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 10:44:25PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> there are AFAICS three topics where there was/is some discussion whether
> they are really RC or not, and where IMHO an editorial clarification
> would be good (in whichever direction the clarification is).
Clarified as follows:
> + the already discussed topic of recommends (IMHO yes, as main should be
> a closure, and broken recommends break that; although I tend to
> sarge-ignore if there is no other clean solution, as all-packages
> don't support something like foo[i386] in their recommends line);
'"Recommends:" lines do not count as requirements.' (Again, this is not
to say that unfulfillable Recommends aren't bugs.)
> + does sarge needs to be rebuildable in sarge (see bug 273048 for
> discussion about that; I think that also this is RC, because otherwise
> security updates could become quite hard);
'Packages must be buildable within the same release.' (We may choose to
ignore some violations of this, depending; the security team will want
this, though.)
> + is it ok if a source package in main build packages in main and
> contrib? I think this is not allowed (but I'm not so convinced here,
> perhaps this is sarge-ignore), but there was some discussion on IRC
> whether this is actually covered by #4 of our RC-policy or not.
If this is to be forbidden, then uploads violating this should simply be
rejected by katie.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]
Reply to: