On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 10:44:25PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > there are AFAICS three topics where there was/is some discussion whether > they are really RC or not, and where IMHO an editorial clarification > would be good (in whichever direction the clarification is).
Clarified as follows: > + the already discussed topic of recommends (IMHO yes, as main should be > a closure, and broken recommends break that; although I tend to > sarge-ignore if there is no other clean solution, as all-packages > don't support something like foo[i386] in their recommends line); '"Recommends:" lines do not count as requirements.' (Again, this is not to say that unfulfillable Recommends aren't bugs.) > + does sarge needs to be rebuildable in sarge (see bug 273048 for > discussion about that; I think that also this is RC, because otherwise > security updates could become quite hard); 'Packages must be buildable within the same release.' (We may choose to ignore some violations of this, depending; the security team will want this, though.) > + is it ok if a source package in main build packages in main and > contrib? I think this is not allowed (but I'm not so convinced here, > perhaps this is sarge-ignore), but there was some discussion on IRC > whether this is actually covered by #4 of our RC-policy or not. If this is to be forbidden, then uploads violating this should simply be rejected by katie. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
