On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 02:11:18PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 13:46:30 +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > > > No, policy is very clear on that: if you call the "build" target, you > > _must_ satisfy Build-Depends-Indep and Build-Conflicts-Indep: > > > And policy is clearly not followed by any actual practice on this point. > So that's as much a bug in policy as anything else (#374029). > > Cheers, > Julien
Well, but then, why have new packagers trained by studying the Policy? Look at my own situation (which must not be a rare one, I suppose): I've worked to make a Debian package of the software I develop [0] with the idea that the Debian Policy had to be implemented in the package making. That software recently entered Debian through NEW and almost immediately after that I got a FTBFS bug report [2]: pbuilder called debian/rules build without installing the required Build-Depends-Indep: texlive-latex-extra, texlive-latex-recommended, texlive-fonts-recommended which of course failed because pdflatex was not found on the system and thus could not build the LaTeX docs of the software. It is a pity to have a Debian Policy so well documented, to point package-making learners to that Policy and then have non-conformant builders. In fact, I'd ask what would be the solution to overcome the problem (apart from the desirable fixing the builders)? My 2 eurocents, Best regards, Filippo [0] http://massxpert.org [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=528086 -- Filippo Rusconi, PhD - CNRS - public key C78F687C Author of ``massXpert'' at http://www.massxpert.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature