On Fri, 2025-02-14 at 01:02:26 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > On Fri, 14 Feb 2025, Sean Whitton wrote: > >Policy has to go through binary-NEW in order to be released. So there > > Technicalities.
Not really, no. > >This bug does not count as RC just because Debian upload bureaucracy > >hasn't been performed yet. > > If packagers cannot rely on Policy to give correct information, what > *can* they rely on? This is not how Debian Policy has ever worked. By that measure packages could not rely on multiarch or triggers to name a coupled of examples. And Policy changes in general tend to be done after the changes have been implemented and deployed in the archive. > Or, if you absolutely must cause more useless churn on package > maintainers, at least forbid not setting R³. But don’t silently > change the default to an incompatible value. The problem that triggered this report was only surfaced by the R³ change, but it is not really directly affected by it. The real problem is that the R³ change made it possible to skip calling the «debian/rules build» targets, where the affected package was already Policy buggy, but the breakage was not visible. If the R³ default would get reverted, but the change to call «fakeroot debian/rules binary-arch» kept, the openjdk-8 package would still misbuild. Thanks, Guillem
