>>>>> "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <sanv...@debian.org> writes:
Santiago> El 28/1/23 a las 20:44, Sebastian Ramacher escribió:
>> On 2023-01-28 15:03:04 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 12:24:47PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
>>>> ... * Those bugs are RC by definition and have been for a long
>>>> time. ...
>>>
>>> Please provide a pointer where a release team member has said so
>>> explicitly in recent years.
>>>
>>> In my experience they are usually saying that FTBFS that do not
>>> happen on the buildds of release architectures are usually not
>>> RC.
>>
>> Indeed. We require that packages are buildable on the buildds. If
>> they don't and they built before, they are RC buggy. For all
>> other FTBFS bugs, please use severity important at most.
Santiago> So: What am I supposed to do when some maintainer rejects
Santiago> that this is a bug at all and closes the bug? (See
Santiago> #1027364 for an example).
Santiago> I believe Adam Borowski just does not understand the
Santiago> current build essential definition. Could somebody please
Santiago> explain it to him? I tried and failed.
Adam has argued that policy's definition of required implied that all
Debian systems need to include required packages including build
systems.
his argument is that the best reading of policy is that you take the
union of requiremnts:
A build system is a Debian system. So to be supported it needs to
include required packages
And it's a build system. So it needs to have build-essential installed.
So Adam is effectively arguing there are multiple requirements that
apply that come from different parts of policy.
That seems like a reasonable reading of policy to me.
I think Ansgar's proposed change to policy avoids ambiguity by making it
clear that build-essential needs to include required.
But Adam has convinced me he is reading policy correctly.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
