Quoting Timo Röhling (2023-01-28 13:30:42)
> Hi Andreas,
>
> * Andreas Henriksson <andreas@fatal.se> [2023-01-28 12:50]:
> >Policy is not a religion. Policy has many bugs. Policy is very outdated.
> >[...]
> >Here's an example you could follow:
> >https://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2022/12/msg00023.html
> Your argument cuts both ways. Right now, Policy says that
> the bugs are RC, and if you believe that should be different, why don't you
> propose such a change and seek consensus yourself?
could we decouple the policy and bug severity question from the question of
what a buildd chroot should contain, please?
Santiago did the work, filed bugs and the fix is to add one more line to
d/control. If you want to reproduce it, use `mmdebstrap --variant=apt
--include=build-essential unstable chroot.tar` to create your chroot tarball.
I think the much more interesting question is in what environment we want to
build our packages in. Currently, on buildds, we build them in a chroot that
has Priority:required and build-essential because of (what I think is) a bug in
debootstrap: #837060
So there are two ways forward:
1. accept that Priority:required is needed for building source packages
- adapt Debian policy accordingly
- revert the changes to packages made due to Santiago's bugs
- change all tools that do build dependency resolution to now also
consider Priority:required packages
2. make sure that packages are built without Priority:required packages
- fix debootstrap #837060 or use mmdebstrap to create buildd chroots
- Santiago already did a mass-rebuild and submitted bugs to make sure that
packages do not FTBFS
The last time I changed all the tools involved in build dependency resolution I
had to submit patches to dpkg, sbuild, apt, dose3, debhelper, cdbs, pbuilder,
lintian, wanna-build, devscripts and others. Of those who prefer option (1)
over option (2) who is going to investigate and potentially change all the
tools who currently just add the "build-essential" package? Or is the solution
to add a dependency to build-essential on all Priority:required packages?
To me it seems that we nearly are already at (2). The debootstrap bug #837060
has a working patch and mmdebstrap exists that can do what is needed today.
Santiago did an archive rebuild to make sure our source package compile in a
chroot without Priority:required.
Why do people call just accepting that Priority:required packages have to be
part of the buildd chroot the easier solution? We just need to fix debootstrap
bug #837060 and we are done, no?
Thanks!
cheers, joschAttachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature