Bug#992136: Don't require Standards-Version field when only udebs Standards-Version for udeb packages

[Sean Whitton]

control: tag -1 + pending

Hello,

On Tue 20 Sep 2022 at 06:39PM -07, Russ Allbery wrote:

> diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> index 428b8a7..ea8f4a3 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> @@ -540,6 +540,9 @@ Thus only the first three components of the policy 
> version are
>  significant in the *Standards-Version* control field, and so either
>  these three components or all four components may be specified. [#]_
>
> +udebs and source packages that only produce udebs do not use
> +``Standards-Version``.
> +
>  .. _s-f-Version:
>
>  ``Version``
> diff --git a/policy/ch-scope.rst b/policy/ch-scope.rst
> index 289c9a9..a279c26 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-scope.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-scope.rst
> @@ -71,11 +71,11 @@ Much of the information presented in this manual will be 
> useful even
>  when building a package which is to be distributed in some other way or
>  is intended for local use only.
>
> -udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) do
> -not comply with all of the requirements discussed here. See the `Debian
> -Installer internals
> -manual `_ for
> -more information about them.
> +udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) and
> +source packages that produce only udebs do not comply with all of the
> +requirements discussed here. See the `Debian Installer internals manual
> +`_ for more information
> +about them.
>
>  .. [#]
> Informally, the criteria used for inclusion is that the material meet

Seconded and applied, thanks.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#992136: Don't require Standards-Version field when only udebs Standards-Version for udeb packages

[Holger Levsen]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 06:39:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here is proposed wording that I think is ready for seconds.
> 
> From: Russ Allbery 
> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 18:35:55 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] Clarify udeb-only source packages are out of scope
> 
> Note that source packages that only produce udebs are, like udebs,
> out of scope and may not follow all of the requirements of Policy.
> 
> Say explicitly in the Standards-Version description that udebs and
> source packages that only produce udebs do not use Standards-Version.
> ---
>  policy/ch-controlfields.rst |  3 +++
>  policy/ch-scope.rst | 10 +-
>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> index 428b8a7..ea8f4a3 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> @@ -540,6 +540,9 @@ Thus only the first three components of the policy 
> version are
>  significant in the *Standards-Version* control field, and so either
>  these three components or all four components may be specified. [#]_
>  
> +udebs and source packages that only produce udebs do not use
> +``Standards-Version``.
> +
>  .. _s-f-Version:
>  
>  ``Version``
> diff --git a/policy/ch-scope.rst b/policy/ch-scope.rst
> index 289c9a9..a279c26 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-scope.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-scope.rst
> @@ -71,11 +71,11 @@ Much of the information presented in this manual will be 
> useful even
>  when building a package which is to be distributed in some other way or
>  is intended for local use only.
>  
> -udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) do
> -not comply with all of the requirements discussed here. See the `Debian
> -Installer internals
> -manual `_ for
> -more information about them.
> +udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) and
> +source packages that produce only udebs do not comply with all of the
> +requirements discussed here. See the `Debian Installer internals manual
> +`_ for more information
> +about them.

seconded, thanks.


-- 
cheers,
Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

It's not the lockdown which is unbearable, but the virus.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#992136: Don't require Standards-Version field when only udebs Standards-Version for udeb packages

[Russ Allbery]

Cyril Brulebois  writes:
> Russ Allbery  (2022-09-19):

>> but I suspect that, to the extent that this is a Policy issue, the problem
>> was that a source package is not itself a udeb and therefore it wasn't clear
>> whether Policy applies to source packages that only produce udebs.  My gut
>> feeling is that it should not: the whole point of udebs is that they get to
>> break the rules.
>> 
>> So, in addition to saying that Standards-Version is generally not used for
>> udebs or for source packages that only build udebs (I would use wording
>> like that rather than "required" since Policy puts no requirements on
>> udebs at all), maybe we should add to this paragraph in 1.1 (Scopes):
>> 
>> udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) do
>> not comply with all of the requirements discussed here. See the Debian
>> Installer internals manual for more information about them.
>> 
>> That could be as simple as saying "udebs (...) and source packages that
>> produce only udebs do not comply"

> Looks good to me, thanks!

Here is proposed wording that I think is ready for seconds.

From: Russ Allbery 
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 18:35:55 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Clarify udeb-only source packages are out of scope

Note that source packages that only produce udebs are, like udebs,
out of scope and may not follow all of the requirements of Policy.

Say explicitly in the Standards-Version description that udebs and
source packages that only produce udebs do not use Standards-Version.
---
 policy/ch-controlfields.rst |  3 +++
 policy/ch-scope.rst | 10 +-
 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
index 428b8a7..ea8f4a3 100644
--- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
+++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
@@ -540,6 +540,9 @@ Thus only the first three components of the policy version 
are
 significant in the *Standards-Version* control field, and so either
 these three components or all four components may be specified. [#]_
 
+udebs and source packages that only produce udebs do not use
+``Standards-Version``.
+
 .. _s-f-Version:
 
 ``Version``
diff --git a/policy/ch-scope.rst b/policy/ch-scope.rst
index 289c9a9..a279c26 100644
--- a/policy/ch-scope.rst
+++ b/policy/ch-scope.rst
@@ -71,11 +71,11 @@ Much of the information presented in this manual will be 
useful even
 when building a package which is to be distributed in some other way or
 is intended for local use only.
 
-udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) do
-not comply with all of the requirements discussed here. See the `Debian
-Installer internals
-manual `_ for
-more information about them.
+udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) and
+source packages that produce only udebs do not comply with all of the
+requirements discussed here. See the `Debian Installer internals manual
+`_ for more information
+about them.
 
 .. [#]
Informally, the criteria used for inclusion is that the material meet

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)  

Bug#991533: Bug#992136: Don't require Standards-Version field when only udebs Standards-Version for udeb packages

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

On Mon 19 Sep 2022 at 09:29PM -07, Russ Allbery wrote:

> So, in addition to saying that Standards-Version is generally not used for
> udebs or for source packages that only build udebs (I would use wording
> like that rather than "required" since Policy puts no requirements on
> udebs at all), maybe we should add to this paragraph in 1.1 (Scopes):
>
> udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) do
> not comply with all of the requirements discussed here. See the Debian
> Installer internals manual for more information about them.
>
> That could be as simple as saying "udebs (...) and source packages that
> produce only udebs do not comply"

Sounds good to me.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#992136: Don't require Standards-Version field when only udebs Standards-Version for udeb packages

[Russ Allbery]

Holger Levsen  writes:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 09:29:36PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> I'm fine with this change, but as Sam points out, the deeper point here
>> is that Policy doesn't apply to udebs.  This is the whole point of
>> udebs.

> When you say it like this, it sounds to strong to me, if it were written in
> -policy.

> .udebs are allowed to break some rules, but not all. it's not ok to put
> Microsoft Word in an udeb in main. there are many other rules .debs need to
> comply to.

Yeah, apologies, this is just shorthand for "udebs are allowed to ignore
the technical bits of Policy that don't work for them."  Not that they can
do absolutely anything they want.  :)

>> udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) do
>> not comply with all of the requirements discussed here. See the Debian
>> Installer internals manual for more information about them.
>  
> this sounds good to me.

Okay, great, thanks.  I'll try to put together a proposed patch soon.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)  

Bug#991533: Bug#992136: Don't require Standards-Version field when only udebs Standards-Version for udeb packages

[Cyril Brulebois]

Russ Allbery  (2022-09-19):
> I'm fine with this change, but as Sam points out, the deeper point here is
> that Policy doesn't apply to udebs.  This is the whole point of udebs.
> 
> I didn't go back and read the history of this bug

Neither did I (I think I was asking for something quite easy and simple,
to make our lives easier, but it kind of blew up and I stepped backward).

> but I suspect that, to the extent that this is a Policy issue, the problem
> was that a source package is not itself a udeb and therefore it wasn't clear
> whether Policy applies to source packages that only produce udebs.  My gut
> feeling is that it should not: the whole point of udebs is that they get to
> break the rules.
> 
> So, in addition to saying that Standards-Version is generally not used for
> udebs or for source packages that only build udebs (I would use wording
> like that rather than "required" since Policy puts no requirements on
> udebs at all), maybe we should add to this paragraph in 1.1 (Scopes):
> 
> udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) do
> not comply with all of the requirements discussed here. See the Debian
> Installer internals manual for more information about them.
> 
> That could be as simple as saying "udebs (...) and source packages that
> produce only udebs do not comply"

Looks good to me, thanks!


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org)
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#992136: Don't require Standards-Version field when only udebs Standards-Version for udeb packages

[Holger Levsen]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 09:29:36PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm fine with this change, but as Sam points out, the deeper point here is
> that Policy doesn't apply to udebs.  This is the whole point of udebs.

When you say it like this, it sounds to strong to me, if it were written in
-policy.

.udebs are allowed to break some rules, but not all. it's not ok to put
Microsoft Word in an udeb in main. there are many other rules .debs need to
comply to.

> udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) do
> not comply with all of the requirements discussed here. See the Debian
> Installer internals manual for more information about them.
 
this sounds good to me.


-- 
cheers,
Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

Where will your kids go when they become climate refugees?


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#991533: Bug#992136: Don't require Standards-Version field when only udebs Standards-Version for udeb packages

[Russ Allbery]

Sean Whitton  writes:
> On Thu 12 Aug 2021 at 11:47PM +02, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>> Sean Whitton  (2021-08-12):
>>> On Tue 27 Jul 2021 at 08:41AM -06, Sam Hartman wrote:

 So, it seems fairly obvious to me that Standards-Version is important
 for packages that produce both debs and udebs.
 I'm assuming the focus of our discussion then is on source packages that
 only produce udebs.
 Have I got that right?

 By definition, most of the policy that affects binary packages does
 not inherently apply to udebs.  As I understand it, that's kind of
 the point of udebs.

>>> Would you agree with this?  You're only asking to stop seeing warnings
>>> about S-V for source packages which produce only udebs?

>> Yes, that looks good to me: source packages (also) producing debs would
>> deserve a rightful nag.

> I believe that we failed to consider udebs when we made the change which
> made S-V mandatory.  I propose we remove the requirement for S-V in
> udebs and source packages producing only udebs, until and unless someone
> provides a positive argument why S-V ought to be mandatory in these
> cases too.

I'm fine with this change, but as Sam points out, the deeper point here is
that Policy doesn't apply to udebs.  This is the whole point of udebs.

I didn't go back and read the history of this bug, but I suspect that, to
the extent that this is a Policy issue, the problem was that a source
package is not itself a udeb and therefore it wasn't clear whether Policy
applies to source packages that only produce udebs.  My gut feeling is
that it should not: the whole point of udebs is that they get to break the
rules.

So, in addition to saying that Standards-Version is generally not used for
udebs or for source packages that only build udebs (I would use wording
like that rather than "required" since Policy puts no requirements on
udebs at all), maybe we should add to this paragraph in 1.1 (Scopes):

udebs (stripped-down binary packages used by the Debian Installer) do
not comply with all of the requirements discussed here. See the Debian
Installer internals manual for more information about them.

That could be as simple as saying "udebs (...) and source packages that
produce only udebs do not comply"

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)