On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 03:57:42PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Bill Allombert writes ("Re: Bug#1092193: option (or env) to request
> <=bookworm r-r-r behaviour"):
> > 2/ I consider --rules-requires-root to be a sufficient work-around
> > _provided_ it is clearly documented
>
> I agree that it should be documented.
>
> I don't agree that it is a completely sufficient workaround. It can
> be used in the case of a single package. But a downstream might have
> have multiple packges. Perhaps very many packages.
>
> If some of those packages are from Debian bookwork or earlier, then
> indeed some of them will not build unless --rules-requires-root is
> passed. But, always passing --rules-requires-root will probably break
> *other* packages that were adapted to rootless builds a long time ago.
I did not anticipate that. Do you have an example of such breakage ?
> I haven't done any kind of survey of the prevalence of this problem.
> I don't think that'd be proportionate. An option that precixely
> changes *just the default* would suffice.
This could be --rules-requires-root=default instead of a new option.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <[email protected]>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
