On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 02:22:33PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Why spend a lot of time on tasks that provide little benefit, and also > some disadvantages (in some cases, the fixes might be non-obvious, and > requires changes to the packaging that tend to obscure it, for example > by using --disable-foo for each and every option we don't want)?
I'm not asking anyone to spend time on this task, but I still consider missing build-conflicts a bug. Ignoring these bugs by insisting on clean chroot environments for all official package builds is no solution - what if one of your build-dependencies pulls in one of these other packages, resulting in an undistributable (license-incompatible) misbuild? If the build-conflicts had been declared, or if the --without-foo option had been passed, we would not have to worry about such a misbuild. In that case, the missing build-conflicts /is/ an RC bug on the package. Most of the time, it won't be, which is why I don't think we should prioritize filing bugs about all such cases. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
