El 21/11/22 a las 14:32, Shengjing Zhu escribió:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 9:07 PM Santiago Vila <sanv...@debian.org> wrote:
Being "priority: required", being "essential: yes", and being
build-essential are all three different things.
My intent is to keep stable free from FTBFS bugs, i.e. packages which do
not follow this paragraph in policy:
"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 and also those required to
satisfy the build-time relationships (including any implied relationships)."
So I think we have different interpretations for the policy.
I don't think this is a matter of interpretation. Debian policy says
what it says, and it says essential and build-essential, it does not say
required.
Required is a priority, and essential is a flag, which is usually
applied to some required packages, but not all. We call essential
packages to the set of required packages which also have the essential
flag (by this I mean "essential:yes", of course).
This has been the case for as long as I have been a Debian maintainer,
but if you are still in doubt, then please do whatever you think it's
appropriate to understand the difference between required and essential.
It is also possible, of course, that I didn't understand what you meant
by "interpretation". In such case, please elaborate a little bit more.
Do you disagree with policy? Do you think it has been "wrongly worded"
for more than 20 years? I confess that I'm a little bit puzzled by this.
My initial question was about the best way to have these bugs fixed in
stable.
I'm open to joining the group and do some of the work myself, if that
becomes a condition. I know very very little about the Go language, but
this is merely a packaging issue, as it's just a matter of adding a line
in debian/control, so I'm confident enough that I would not break
anything in the process.
Thanks.
