On Wed, 07 May 2025 at 20:43:24 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Simon McVittie <s...@debian.org> writes:
I hope that
packages don't assume that /usr/games is in the PATH at build time in
any case.
Is it a bug if they do? Buildd's have /usr/games in the default PATH so
I don't think we notice now.
That's not clear. Different developers have different interpretations of
what "packages must build successfully from source" means - as a minimum
they need to be buildable on our official buildds, but the more
differences from that we're willing to support, the more likely it is
for users and developers to be able to rebuild a package successfully
with changes of their choice. I think the rough consensus is "packages
should build successfully on normal systems", and then we inevitably get
into arguments about whether a particular system is or isn't normal.
As a data point, debuild(1) sanitizes PATH to
/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin/X11 by default, if I'm reading
correctly.
I'd personally report "FTBFS without /usr/games in PATH" as non-RC if I
happened to notice it, with the suggested patch being something like adding
export PATH = ${PATH}:/usr/games
in d/rules (because if there is a possibility that we might want to
reopen #567033 and merge /usr/games into /usr/bin, then hard-coding
the absolute path of a /usr/games/foo in another package is probably
not advisable).
If I'm reading debuild's code correctly, then Severity: normal or even
important might be justifiable, because rebuilding a package for a local
change by using debuild seems like a fairly normal use-case.
My archive rebuild now uses PATH=/usr/bin so I will get breakage for any
package that FTBFS because of missing /usr/games in PATH.
If you're willing to report those as usertagged non-RC bugs, I think
that would be helpful.
smcv
