Your message dated Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:44:51 -0700 with message-id <87o9rlx51o....@iris.silentflame.com> and subject line Closing inactive Policy bugs has caused the Debian Bug report #832654, regarding debian-policy: 3.5 Dependencies possibly not detailed enough (about versioning etc.) to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 832654: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=832654 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: debian-policy Version: 3.9.8.0 Severity: wishlist Hello, I just filed #832650 (insufficient Depends of systemd 230-7), and also had several similar package issues reported in earlier times. I just realized that debian-policy section "3.5 Dependencies" perhaps is insufficiently worded: It does not mention e.g. "versioning" of a dependency (this may be intentional after all, since this section may want to be a more general, short/concise statement that dependencies simply need to be "correct", regardless of whether this then applies to specific dependency information stuff such as version values, etc.). One additional aspect here (which may also need mentioning via explaining) is the question of whether (or: how strongly) reliability of these dependency requirements also apply to the use case of inter-distro-version upgrading (i.e., upgrading from a rather old distro base). A key phrase which may be missing from that section (especially near "Every package must specify the dependency information") is "require a sufficiently fully qualified dependency", to "always guarantee successful operation of the depender after installation or upgrades". Worded differently, perhaps a good form is "require dependencies stated in sufficiently fully precisely qualified information form (package name, version level, etc.), to achieve always guaranteeing successful operation of the depender after whichever installation or upgrade occurs". [or "after any installation or upgrade"] Policy demands here ought to be clarified a bit I believe (without this section then ending up overly verbose, of course), in order to achieve maximally precisely stating what is or is not the requirement that package maintenance efforts are expected to meet. Thanks, Andreas Mohr
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---control: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org control: usertag -1 +obsolete control: tag -1 +wontfix Russ Allbery and I did a round of in-person bug triage at DebConf17 and we are closing this bug as inactive. The reasons for closing fall into the following categories, from most frequent to least frequent: - issue is appropriate for Policy, there is a consensus on how to fix the problem, but preparing the patch is very time-consuming and no-one has volunteered to do it, and we do not judge the issue to be important enough to keep an open bug around; - issue is appropriate for Policy but there does not yet exist a consensus on what should change, and no recent discussion. A fresh discussion might allow us to reach consensus, and the messages in the old bug are unlikely to help very much; or - issue is not appropriate for Policy. If you feel this bug is still relevant and want to restart the discussion, you can re-open the bug. However, please consider instead opening a new bug with a message that summarises and condenses the previous discussion, updates the report for the current state of Debian, and makes clear exactly what you think should change. A lot of these old bugs have long side tangents and numerous messages, and that old discussion is not necessarily helpful for figuring out what Debian Policy should say today. -- Sean Whittonsignature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---