Bug#521918: pbuilder --build --binary-arch invokes 'build' target

[Filippo Rusconi]

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 02:11:18PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> 
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 13:46:30 +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> 
> > No, policy is very clear on that: if you call the "build" target, you
> > _must_ satisfy Build-Depends-Indep and Build-Conflicts-Indep:
> > 
> And policy is clearly not followed by any actual practice on this point.
> So that's as much a bug in policy as anything else (#374029).
> 
> Cheers,
> Julien

Well, but then, why have new packagers trained by studying the Policy?

Look at my own situation (which must not be a rare one, I suppose):
I've worked to make a Debian package of the software I develop [0]
with the idea that the Debian Policy had to be implemented in the
package making.

That software recently entered Debian through NEW and almost
immediately after that I got a FTBFS bug report [2]: pbuilder called
debian/rules build without installing the required

Build-Depends-Indep: texlive-latex-extra, texlive-latex-recommended, texlive-fonts-recommended

which of course failed because pdflatex was not found on the system
and thus could not build the LaTeX docs of the software.

It is a pity to have a Debian Policy so well documented, to point
package-making learners to that Policy and then have non-conformant
builders.

In fact, I'd ask what would be the solution to overcome the problem
(apart from the desirable fixing the builders)?

My 2 eurocents,

Best regards,

	Filippo


[0] http://massxpert.org
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=528086

--
Filippo Rusconi, PhD - CNRS - public key C78F687C
Author of ``massXpert''     at http://www.massxpert.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-science-maintainers/attachments/20090511/ccd2d404/attachment.pgp>