Web lists-archives.com

Use of the Build-Conflicts field




Hello,

Use of the Build-Conflicts field is currently mostly optional, but Ian
Jackson and I have been working on text for Debian Policy that would
require its use in certain cases.  See #824495 for the discussion.

There are two cases which we think that everyone would agree that there
is a bug, but we are not sure that the bug would be considered to be RC.
We are posting to -devel to see if, in fact, we do have a consensus that
these bugs would be RC, or not.

(1) a package FTBFSs when: another package that is part of a "reasonable
    standard development workstation install" is present, but the first
    package does not declare a Build-Conflicts against the second

(2) a package FTBFSs when: a package that is NOT part of a "reasonable
    standard development workstation install" is present, but the first
    package does not declare a Build-Conflicts against the second

Is (1) an RC-severity bug in the package that FTBFSs?  Is (2)?

It is worth noting that in both cases, the fix is highly non-disruptive
to maintainer workflows: you just add the build-conflicts metadata.  But
how easy it is to fix the bug does not determine whether or not that bug
is RC.

For the purposes of this e-mail, let's assume that we have a good grasp
on what a "reasonable standard development workstation install" means.

Thanks.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature