El 29/1/23 a las 9:56, Sebastian Ramacher escribió:
On 2023-01-28 15:55:05 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Historically, we have not treated FTBFS bugs as falling into the category
of mass bug filing or requiring this pre-discussion. Various folks have
been mass-filing FTBFS bugs near the release freeze for many years now and
they generally don't get a debian-devel discussion first.
I don't think that those are comparable. Rebuilds with modified base
chroots have been discussed here before filing bugs. [1] is one of the
oldest examples I was able to find.
Cheers
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/01/msg00869.html
There is a big difference between such experiment and what I do.
Policy 4.2 starts by saying this:
Source packages should specify which binary packages they require to be
installed
or not to be installed in order to build correctly.
(I think it is because the "or not" part that Adrian thinks I'm trying to
open a can of worms. But that's not the case). Policy follows:
If build-time dependencies are specified, it must be possible to build the
package and produce working binaries on a system with only essential and
build-essential packages installed [...]
This is when we have a "must", in a clean chroot environment. So, there is a
"must" to build
in a completely clean environment, but there is not a "must" to build in a
dirty environment.
Therefore, I don't think it's fair at all to put both kind of environments in
the same
bag by calling them both "modified build environments".
Thanks.
