On Tue, 09 Jan 2018 at 15:40:04 +0000, Wookey wrote:
> On 2018-01-09 15:07 +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > Thus, we keep packages built with a different build profile but the same
> > name/version/arcitecture bit-by-bit identical to each other.
>
> However we do have 'nodoc', which can't possibly produce bit-by-bit
> identical packages (unless the docs are in a separate package) so I
> don't see how it can be right to say "packages built with a different
> build profile but the same name/version/arcitecture are bit-by-bit
> identical to each other".
The policy on the wiki is phrased in terms of no functional differences,
and ideally no differences at all. Missing some man pages is a difference,
but hopefully not one that matters when satisfying dependencies.
(One interesting example of documentation being a functional
difference is that it's *technically* not right to omit gtk-doc
documentation from a package under the nodoc build profile, because
other packages with Build-Depends-Indep on that documentation can use
it to rewrite cross-references from web links into relative local file
references. Luckily most libraries that are documented with gtk-doc
build a separate -doc package for other reasons anyway, so that
package can easily be marked Build-Profiles: <!nodoc>.)
> Again, this is very much policy, not mechanism
Yes. You've been in Debian longer than I have; surely you know by now
how much importance we put on policies? :-)
smcv
