Bug#769273: bsdutils: Dependency on libsystemd0 violates policy
Package: bsdutils Version: 1:2.25.2-2 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.5 Dear Maintainer, libsystemd0 dependancy violates constraint at the end of section 2.5 of the policy manual that requires packages not depend on packages with lower priority.. -- System Information: Debian Release: jessie/sid APT prefers testing-updates APT policy: (500, 'testing-updates'), (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.16-2-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages bsdutils depends on: ii libc62.19-13 ii libsystemd0 215-5+b1 Versions of packages bsdutils recommends: ii bsdmainutils 9.0.6 bsdutils suggests no packages. -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#769273: bsdutils: Dependency on libsystemd0 violates policy
Hello Tim Wootton, release-team, et.al.! Thanks for your bug report. On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:00:16AM +, Tim Wootton wrote: Package: bsdutils Version: 1:2.25.2-2 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.5 Dear Maintainer, libsystemd0 dependancy violates constraint at the end of section 2.5 of the policy manual that requires packages not depend on packages with lower priority. This (general) problem has been discussed (several times?) on debian-devel already and as far as I remember and understood it was that raising the priority of the relevant systemd binary packages could be done but it did not solve any *practical* problem. Instead it seemed easier to just fix policy. I guess that's where everyone lost interest I'd like to defer this issue to release team to decide what the best course of action is. They can decide if this is a wontfix/jessie-ignore, if policy editors must update the policy before the jessie release or if systemd maintainers needs to adjust their priority. Regards, Andreas Henriksson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#769273: bsdutils: Dependency on libsystemd0 violates policy
Am 12.11.2014 um 15:04 schrieb Andreas Henriksson: Hello Tim Wootton, release-team, et.al.! Thanks for your bug report. On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:00:16AM +, Tim Wootton wrote: Package: bsdutils Version: 1:2.25.2-2 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.5 Dear Maintainer, libsystemd0 dependancy violates constraint at the end of section 2.5 of the policy manual that requires packages not depend on packages with lower priority. This (general) problem has been discussed (several times?) on debian-devel already and as far as I remember and understood it was that raising the priority of the relevant systemd binary packages could be done but it did not solve any *practical* problem. Instead it seemed easier to just fix policy. I guess that's where everyone lost interest Indeed, it doesn't fix any actual problem, but raising priority of library and helper packages actually creates problems. Let's take rsyslog as an example, which is priority important, so raising all the library dependencies to = important now means, if I debootstrap a chroot and want to exclude rsyslog, I have to exclude all dependend libraries as well. Or if I remove rsyslog (e.g. because I switched to another syslogger or no syslogger), I have to manually uninstall the unused libraries. Please, let's not continue doing this non-sense and fix policy. -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#769273: bsdutils: Dependency on libsystemd0 violates policy
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 03:04:56PM +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote: Hello Tim Wootton, release-team, et.al.! Thanks for your bug report. On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:00:16AM +, Tim Wootton wrote: Package: bsdutils Version: 1:2.25.2-2 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.5 Dear Maintainer, libsystemd0 dependancy violates constraint at the end of section 2.5 of the policy manual that requires packages not depend on packages with lower priority. This (general) problem has been discussed (several times?) on debian-devel already and as far as I remember and understood it was that raising the priority of the relevant systemd binary packages could be done but it did not solve any *practical* problem. Instead it seemed easier to just fix policy. I guess that's where everyone lost interest It is well settled that priority changes are done throught the distribution override file and not in the package control file and thus, an error of priority is not a RC bug in the package. Cheers, -- Bill. ballo...@debian.org Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#769273: re Bug#769273: bsdutils: Dependency on libsystemd0 violates policy - like hundreds of others
Hi, 1752 packages are listed to violate this same policy: https://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?dist=sidlist=main-only-priorityarch=ANY policy discussion about this is happening at #758234 Riku -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#769273: bsdutils: Dependency on libsystemd0 violates policy
Am 12.11.2014 um 15:35 schrieb Bill Allombert: It is well settled that priority changes are done throught the distribution override file and not in the package control file and thus, an error of priority is not a RC bug in the package. And that. Adjusting library package priorities is useless busy work for our ftp-masters and wasting their scarce time which they could better spend elsewhere. It's often followed by a source package upload as well, where the maintainer adjusts debian/control to match what's in the archive, creating more busy work. -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#769273: bsdutils: Dependency on libsystemd0 violates policy
On 12/11/14 14:29, Michael Biebl wrote: Am 12.11.2014 um 15:04 schrieb Andreas Henriksson: Hello Tim Wootton, release-team, et.al.! Thanks for your bug report. On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:00:16AM +, Tim Wootton wrote: Package: bsdutils Version: 1:2.25.2-2 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.5 Dear Maintainer, libsystemd0 dependancy violates constraint at the end of section 2.5 of the policy manual that requires packages not depend on packages with lower priority. This (general) problem has been discussed (several times?) on debian-devel already and as far as I remember and understood it was that raising the priority of the relevant systemd binary packages could be done but it did not solve any *practical* problem. Instead it seemed easier to just fix policy. I guess that's where everyone lost interest Indeed, it doesn't fix any actual problem, but raising priority of library and helper packages actually creates problems. Let's take rsyslog as an example, which is priority important, so raising all the library dependencies to = important now means, if I debootstrap a chroot and want to exclude rsyslog, I have to exclude all dependend libraries as well. Or if I remove rsyslog (e.g. because I switched to another syslogger or no syslogger), I have to manually uninstall the unused libraries. Please, let's not continue doing this non-sense and fix policy. or just build without the dependency in the 1st place like it used to be. After all it's not like it adds anything that's essential. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
