Sean Whitton: > Hello Niels, > > On Sun, Feb 25 2018, Niels Thykier wrote: > >> Attached is my updated draft along with a changes since the previous >> draft. > > Thank you for this! Let's get this into a release of the Policy Manual. >
Hi, Thanks for cleaning up the text. :) > I've pushed a bug880920-spwhitton branch to the Policy repo for you to > review. Aside from a single substantive change explained below, all my > commits are rewordings for clarity and readability. My commit messages > should explain them. > > It would be most efficient if you could base new patches on my > bug880920-spwhitton branch. Once we are happy with that branch, we can > prepare a diff of the whole branch and post that to this bug to seek > seconds, and then just merge the branch. > Hi, I have reviewed the commits on the branch (with HEAD at efa61ef2c2580ac9a3c4ba2f0756249b4c862989) and I am happy with the individual changes you have done on top of my initial proposal. >From my PoV, I think it is ready for seconding/wider review and I am happy to support/second it. >> +The builder should set ``DEB_RULES_REQUIRES_ROOT`` environment >> +variable when calling any of the mandatory targets as defined in >> +:ref:`Rules-Requires-Root <s-f-Rules-Requires-Root>`. If the >> variable +is not set, the package must behave as if it was set to >> +``binary-targets``. >> + > > I think s/should/may/ in the first line -- can you explain why you think > it is worth enforcing this upon every build tool that might ever be > uploaded to Debian, given that there exists a solid fallback? > I am fine with it being relaxed to a "may", as I think documenting R³ is more important than whether supporting is subject to a "should" or a "may". Thanks, ~Niels
