Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#824495: debian-policy: Source packages "can" declare relationships"): > I feel pretty strongly here that Build-Conflicts is not a correct solution > to this problem, and therefore I'm not happy about the idea of adding a > Policy rule that would imply that it was. The problem was that the > package didn't tolerate having automake installed, and fixing *that* was > the correct fix. But this seems fairly subtle to try to turn into a > general Policy rule.
How about: Package builds MAY be affected, sometimes adversely, by the installation of additional packages beyond the Build-Depends and build-essential, subject to the following rules: Nature of package Effect Permitted on build output Installed by default Any effect MUST NOT with any Build-Depends Part of any reasonble Additional SHOULD NOT default install for features development workstation Build fails SHOULD NOT, MUST Build-Conflict Builds broken MUST NOT packages Other packages Additional MAY features Build fails SHOULD NOT, MUST Build-Conflict Builds broken MUST NOT packages Or to put it another way: Package builds MAY be influenced by the presence in the build environment of additional packages, beyond the Build-Depends and build-essential. However: Additional packages MUST NOT have any effect other than either: (i) a failure of the build, in which case the additional packages MUST be declared in Build-Conflicts); or (ii) output packages with additional features or functionality. Such additional features MAY imply additional functional runtime dependencies, which then SHOULD be represented in the output packages' metadata. In this case the additional packages SHOULD NOT be declared in Build-Conflicts. Additionally, in any case: additional packages which are installed by default by apt when the build dependencies are installed MUST NOT have any significant effect. Any additional package which could reasonably form part of a default install for a development workstation SHOULD NOT have any significant effect. Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.