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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
