>>>>> "Cyril" == Cyril Brulebois <k...@debian.org> writes:
Cyril> Hi, Felix Lechner <felix.lech...@lease-up.com> (2021-07-26):
Cyril> cc-ing debian-policy@ for some possible feedback.
Cyril> I'm not sure why we should be spending time tracking down
Cyril> Policy changes in (source for) udeb packages… so adding then
Cyril> updating this field to all our packages doesn't seem to do us
Cyril> any good.
So, it seems fairly obvious to me that Standards-Version is important
for packages that produce both debs and udebs.
I'm assuming the focus of our discussion then is on source packages that
only produce udebs.
Have I got that right?
By definition, most of the policy that affects binary packages does not
inherently apply to udebs. As I understand it, that's kind of the point
of udebs.
But there's a lot of policy that applies to source packages. AS an
example, the description of the debian/rules interface, rules about how
builds work, rules about what builds can and cannot do, rules about how
to influence builds (compiler options and the like).
So, in my mind, the biggest question is should all those aspects of
policy apply to packages producing only udebs.
I don't have an answer to that, but I do have some thoughts:
1) I realize i don't entirely know why udebs are udebs not debs.
I think it will help us in the discussion if we have a clear answer to
that question.
2) i suspect that we have not explicitly been considering source
packages that make only udebs when we've been thinking about policy
changes. So it's likely that there are some bugs in this regard.
3) I think many things such as the debian/rules interface, how to
specify compiler options, and the like are good ideas for dscs only
building udebs.
I'd say that there are significant chunks of policy it would be a great
idea for d-i packages to comply with.
For me, I'd need to know more about 1 in order to have an opinion on
whether there should be an obligation to comply with these aspects of
policy.
