Hello Russ, On Sat 25 Dec 2021 at 06:45PM -08, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre <vinc...@vinc17.net> writes: >> On 2021-12-25 14:48:33 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >>> Vincent Lefevre <vinc...@vinc17.net> writes: > >>>> Here, the build via "debuild" is failing even when fakeroot is >>>> available (installed on the machine). Note that Rules-Requires-Root >>>> has been set to "no". IMHO, the policy should say that when >>>> Rules-Requires-Root is set to "no", being root or using fakeroot >>>> should not be required. > >>> It does already. > >>> no: Declares that neither root nor fakeroot is required. Package >>> builders (e.g. dpkg-buildpackage) may choose to invoke any target in >>> debian/rules with an unprivileged user. > >>> Am I missing something? > >> According to Sean, this is just advisory (and Scott Kitterman seemed >> to assume that a build failure as non-root[*] was not a RC bug). > > I don't understand what "advisory" means here. This field controls the > behavior of the package building software. If the package says that root > isn't required, the package will be built without root. If root turns out > to be required, the package will FTBFS. There's nothing "advisory" about > having inaccurate package metadata that causes FTBFS, surely? I said that the requirement is only advisory based on how there is no requirement on packages expressed must/should/etc. in the description of Rules-Requires-Root: no in Policy. The target of the advice would be authors and maintainers of package builders. However, I missed the use of "required" in the text, which means there is in fact a Policy requirement not to fail to build as non-root when this field value is declared, I think? Sorry for causing some confusion here. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
