On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 08:15:33PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 23/11/14 at 20:03 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 04:47:00PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > > --- a/policy.sgml > > > > +++ b/policy.sgml > > > > @@ -1928,12 +1928,16 @@ zope. > > > > impossible to auto-compile that package and also makes it hard > > > > for other people to reproduce the same binary package, all > > > > required targets must be non-interactive. It also follows > > > > that > > > > any target that these targets depend on must also be > > > > non-interactive. > > > > </p> > > > > + <p> > > > > + For packages in the main archive, no required targets > > > > + may attempt network access. > > > > + </p> > > > > > > > > <p> > > > > The targets are as follows: > > > > <taglist> > > > > <tag><tt>build</tt> (required)</tag> > > > > <item> > > > > > > This is something we want for multiple reasons, but have we already fixed > > > all instances of, e.g., validating sgml/xml parsers trying to fetch DTDs > > > or > > > schemas during documentation build ? Or other network access attempts > > > that > > > don't fail a build (and helpfully don't modify it either)? > > > > Lucas, can you confirm that the main archive ca be rebuild without external > > network access ? > > No: that's something I used to check (by building on machines with > specific firewall rules to forbid external network access), but that I > haven't been testing recently.
Was there a lot of failure ? What severity did you use for the bug report ? Are you in favor of the patch above ? I think it reflect the general view and practice. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141123201344.GA17142@yellowpig
