Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> writes: > 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. Oh, no problem at all, and that makes sense. FWIW, I think Policy requirements may be the wrong way of thinking about this problem. If I try to compile a Perl module with GCC in debian/rules, I would be hard-pressed to name a specific Policy requirement that violates, but the package wouldn't build and that's a FTBFS bug. This feels more like that: the package metadata says to build it as non-root, which means that if it doesn't build as non-root, that's a FTBFS bug. Anyway, it all seems to be sorted out now, and I suspect the root problem was some benign misunderstanding of the root cause Vincent's bug report. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
