On Sat, 2023-01-28 at 16:32:17 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 01:59:40PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > Unsupported by whom? What is supported or unsupported is explained in > > policy. > > Policy says it must work. Therefore it should be supported (by fixing the > > bugs). > > Policy §2.5: > # "required" > # Packages which are necessary for the proper functioning of the > # system (usually, this means that dpkg functionality depends on > # these packages). Removing a "required" package may cause your > # system to become totally broken and you may not even be able to use > # "dpkg" to put things back, so only do so if you know what you are > # doing.
As stated several times now this passage seems wrong, or inaccurate at best. See #950440. And I don't see how tzdata would ever fall into this definition even if that paragraph was correct. As mentioned before, the tzdata package does not seem like a "required" package at all, and this should be fixed by lowering its priority. Whether debootstrap can be fixed to not use the Priority workaround, seem orthogonal to the issue at hand. > > That's a straw man. I'm not proposing anything of the sort. Policy says > > packages must build when essential and build-essential packages > > are installed (plus build-dependencies). > > Build-essential _packages_. Not the "build-essential" package which very > clearly says its dependencies are purely informational. It does not seem fair to argue both that the build-essential package is just informational (when it's in fact the canonical declaration of what is Build-Essential, and what every tool uses to install or check for the Build-Essential package set), and then also argue that whatever debootstrap installs (which is based both on build-essential plus a workaround due to lack of proper dependency resolution) is the canonical thing. Regards, Guillem
