On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 07:49:58PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: > Jelmer Vernooij: > > On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 04:51:05PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: > > > Package: lintian-brush > > > Severity: normal > > > X-Debbugs-Cc: ni...@thykier.net > > > > > > Per lists.debian.org/<821041fd-b980-4506-a35a-b9826fe04...@thykier.net>, > > > dpkg will now flip the default for Rules-Requires-Root. Therefore, > > > maintainers should no longer be prodded to set `Rules-Requires-Root` any > > > more when omitted. > > > > > > I have filed #1091912 for the lintian side of things. > > > > Does that mean lintian/lintian-brush should potentially delete explicit > > declaration of Rules-Requires-Root (depending on Standards-Version?) ? > > > > Jelmer > > > > I would say "not yet". > > The default is decided by `dpkg` and that default differs depending on the > Debian release with Trixie + newer on one side and older on the other side. > For a package that aiming at supporting (old)stable-backports, it is > perfectly valid to have `Rules-Requires-Root: no` to ensure that the > -backports use rootless builds to match the current sid/testing. If > lintian-brush removes that field too soon, then (old)stable-backports is > built using different rules than sid+testing which is unnecessary debugging > for the maintainers. > > Some years down the line though, `Rules-Requires-Root: no` would become > truly redundant and something that `lintian-brush` should just remove like > other fields where specifying the default is redundant.
lintian-brush has a notion of oldest-supported-release, which is set to the current stable release (so currently "bookworm"). A lot of the behaviour is based on what versions of packages are available in the oldest supported release. So in this case, perhaps that means we can drop Rules-Requires-Root once the oldest supported dpkg is newer than a certain version (1.22.13?). Cheers, Jelmer
