Your message dated Sat, 17 Nov 2018 17:04:28 +0000 with message-id <e1go41e-000bea...@fasolo.debian.org> and subject line Bug#824495: fixed in debian-policy 4.2.1.5 has caused the Debian Bug report #824495, regarding debian-policy: Source packages "can" declare relationships to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 824495: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=824495 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: debian-policy Severity: wishlist Hello. Policy 7.7 says: (Bold in "can" is mine) Source packages that require certain binary packages to be installed or absent at the time of building the package *can* declare relationships to those binary packages. I interpret this "can" in the sense that this is the vocabulary that the maintainer is allowed to use when writing control files. To my surprise, however, today a maintainer has quoted this "can" word as a rationale for a missing Build-Conflicts not to be a bug of serious severity: "No _must_ directive here. It is not a Policy violation if you don't use Build-Conflicts." If my idea that policy is just describing the vocabulary is close to reality, I would perhaps suggest something like this: The following relationsips are available for source packages to express the fact that they require certain binary packages to be installed or absent at the time of building the package. but then it would be nice to state somewhere later that Build-Depends and Build-Conflicts are not just "optional" but mandatory when the referenced packages are either required to be present or required to be absent. While we are at it, I understand, because it would involve a huge amount of computation to determine, that we can't test every package against every other binary package to discover undeclared build-conflicts. Is there any rule to decide what to put in build-conflicts? Thanks.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Source: debian-policy Source-Version: 4.2.1.5 We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of debian-policy, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive. A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to 824...@bugs.debian.org, and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> (supplier of updated debian-policy package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 09:36:39 -0700 Source: debian-policy Binary: debian-policy debian-policy-ja Architecture: source Version: 4.2.1.5 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian Policy Editors <debian-policy@lists.debian.org> Changed-By: Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> Description: debian-policy - Debian Policy Manual and related documents debian-policy-ja - Debian Policy Manual and related documents (Japanese) Closes: 824495 913295 913659 Changes: debian-policy (4.2.1.5) unstable; urgency=medium . * Add references to 'next' branch in README.md. * Replace a 'can' with a 'may' for readability in 7.7 (Closes: #824495). Thanks to Santiago Vila for reporting the problem. * Update location of sample init.d script (Closes: #913295). Thanks to Dmitry Bogatov for the patch. * Document in 1.1 that not all bugs are Policy violations (Closes: #913659). Thanks to Ian Jackson for the patch. Checksums-Sha1: bd68fa841bfd095cc40b16121766e49327edd536 2019 debian-policy_4.2.1.5.dsc f8762689a38e513f513d2525b5b3e06f3968c102 529392 debian-policy_4.2.1.5.tar.xz Checksums-Sha256: aa508ff74b37e55e9acff329eb100f4b1886fc3894e9efc4016d11f76401a789 2019 debian-policy_4.2.1.5.dsc 0ade6284b2860e57b139182e31532aebd7a8976f0fced52be59801246fb074cc 529392 debian-policy_4.2.1.5.tar.xz Files: fab89e77a52a448642e53741a95030a0 2019 doc optional debian-policy_4.2.1.5.dsc ef5280a694be1255d8649cdcbabb7ce7 529392 doc optional debian-policy_4.2.1.5.tar.xz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEm5FwB64DDjbk/CSLaVt65L8GYkAFAlvwQ/EACgkQaVt65L8G YkA8RQ//VmPp/NHvJHBaZs3uX9UOoExuAcuOLYU4vYEdBU+dajTdwlLAFxqkfMqG bSYQ4Z8HRdbLIm47Zqj9Z0WTjOEhdq+WVxjiZfqafyO+uedzBmPV1f+f9MSYY3GU raaWFkzO6XcHcxrfCezj38OqzJKYcBsBxRs15PgK9O2tUS6Qj6IyHykgaOgdZr53 AIQQOLaW27ml3z3D/onrrG2HtJl/1kr68TQijwxpEz9RjD6v61PMCBS+upwPLZM6 kTcN1lwb0NipL5z6HxpG3DUeYy9vdyk4hFk2UEvlySK7KiruF+FNEs5i18ohRuvr zTO/NVcWzLI6uwpZ8rRQ0yI2T9EEfnBaice7H/RTHucKW2bOOmcuN7lmlH9rehJm h9Bipha3NahFXMbL+pGmn9BrdEqAaksYXsD+cFTpYeAtCNLAIVVhXBjbrmR4uhCx k0EH4X4sRSIO6caFPLk5dP2kZuDDlHiWoSBMB5RCheGJWFjFNazWTyFZjnNnEQ9x dG7JMwdJAvub/as1bvhU/rrf6JiFuHRvReH3rEXUMasUdGoUfZokl0OyrGH1Ln7H IG3aOachjvTP8cdEym2hFfX0TCLjhqeD8KUbGuJ8L04MugsnhFS7u2Tdxci6QNeX 7ksJNbNm5cjTfPj4Y9FQ14sk3ypQHENiERVYzdkaaTs8l9vjlfo= =S2hx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- End Message ---
