On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 02:11:18PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 13:46:30 +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > > > No, policy is very clear on that: if you call the "build" target, you > > _must_ satisfy Build-Depends-Indep and Build-Conflicts-Indep: > > > And policy is clearly not followed by any actual practice on this point. > So that's as much a bug in policy as anything else (#374029). > > Cheers, > Julien
Well, but then, why have new packagers trained by studying the Policy?
Look at my own situation (which must not be a rare one, I suppose):
I've worked to make a Debian package of the software I develop [0]
with the idea that the Debian Policy had to be implemented in the
package making.
That software recently entered Debian through NEW and almost
immediately after that I got a FTBFS bug report [2]: pbuilder called
debian/rules build without installing the required
Build-Depends-Indep: texlive-latex-extra, texlive-latex-recommended,
texlive-fonts-recommended
which of course failed because pdflatex was not found on the system
and thus could not build the LaTeX docs of the software.
It is a pity to have a Debian Policy so well documented, to point
package-making learners to that Policy and then have non-conformant
builders.
In fact, I'd ask what would be the solution to overcome the problem
(apart from the desirable fixing the builders)?
My 2 eurocents,
Best regards,
Filippo
[0] http://massxpert.org
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=528086
--
Filippo Rusconi, PhD - CNRS - public key C78F687C
Author of ``massXpert'' at http://www.massxpert.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
