On Thu, 2021-09-09 at 12:48 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > > But source packages in main must also produce at least one binary > > package in main[1]. > > Let's include that point in Policy. > > > [1]: Probably with the default build profile if we care about corner > > cases. > > Are we sure about this? Is this a bug in current dak or a general > problem with the semantics we're discussing?
We expect all packages uploaded to Debian to use the default build profile (as a policy). Not doing so will probably cause various issues (such as a binNMU reverting to the default profile thus changing the package). So for the archive a binary only built in non-default build profiles should just be ignored (for binary-NEW, choice of archive area, ...) as it shouldn't appear in Debian; packages are free to do whatever they want with build profiles. This behavior was asked for in https://bugs.debian.org/913965 If we allowed packages to use non-default build profiles then we would probably have to revisit this. (I would expect this corner case to not happen in practice.) > > I personally would prefer if we would avoid using this feature too much > > if possible. It is simpler to understand when archive areas are self- > > contained (IMHO). Outside Debian archive areas are used differently, > > e.g., for different "branches" or similar; sources building binary > > packages across multiple archive areas also find strange corner cases > > now and then that are not handled correctly. > > It would be good if we included in Policy the idea that for technical > reasons, it is best to use separate source packages (only) when that is > not otherwise too inconvenient. > > I am not sure we have a consensus on avoiding using this feature for the > sake of simplicity of understanding, so let's exclude that idea for now. Sure, that seems reasonable enough. Ansgar
