Debian Bug report logs - #845369
debian-policy: [5.6.8] Not fully updated for "any all"

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Olly Betts <olly@survex.com>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: debian-policy: [5.6.8] Not fully updated for "any all"

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:00:56 +1300

Package: debian-policy
Severity: minor

In policy 3.9.3.0 (at least according to upgrading-checklist.txt):

     5.6.8
          The `Architecture' field in `*.dsc' files may now contain the
          value `any all' for source packages building both
          architecture-independent and architecture-dependent packages.

The current 5.6.8 does describe `any all`, but unfortunately it also still
contains this paragraph which is no longer correct since this change:

     In the main `debian/control' file in the source package, this field
     may contain the special value `all', the special architecture wildcard
     `any', or a list of specific and wildcard architectures separated by
     spaces.  If `all' or `any' appears, that value must be the entire
     contents of the field.  Most packages will use either `all' or `any'.

I'd suggest updating this to:

     In the main `debian/control' file in the source package, this field
     may contain the special value `all', the special architecture wildcard
     `any', the special combination `any all`, or a list of specific and
     wildcard architectures separated by spaces.  If `all', `any', or
     `any all` appears, that value must be the entire contents of the
     field.  Most packages will use either `all', `any', or `any all`.

(Credit for noticing this should go to sarnold on #launchpad).

Cheers,
    Olly

Message #8 received at 845369@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>

To: debian-policy@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#845369: debian-policy: [5.6.8] Not fully updated for "any all"

Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 21:32:50 +0000

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 09:00:56AM +1300, Olly Betts wrote:
> In policy 3.9.3.0 (at least according to upgrading-checklist.txt):
> 
>      5.6.8
>           The `Architecture' field in `*.dsc' files may now contain the
>           value `any all' for source packages building both
>           architecture-independent and architecture-dependent packages.
> 
> The current 5.6.8 does describe `any all`, but unfortunately it also still
> contains this paragraph which is no longer correct since this change:
> 
>      In the main `debian/control' file in the source package, this field
>      may contain the special value `all', the special architecture wildcard
>      `any', or a list of specific and wildcard architectures separated by
>      spaces.  If `all' or `any' appears, that value must be the entire
>      contents of the field.  Most packages will use either `all' or `any'.
> 
> I'd suggest updating this to:
> 
>      In the main `debian/control' file in the source package, this field
>      may contain the special value `all', the special architecture wildcard
>      `any', the special combination `any all`, or a list of specific and
>      wildcard architectures separated by spaces.  If `all', `any', or
>      `any all` appears, that value must be the entire contents of the
>      field.  Most packages will use either `all', `any', or `any all`.

I think this proposed change would be a mistake.

Any individual binary package listed in debian/control must either be
architecture-dependent or architecture-independent; it is meaningless
for it to be both.  Section 5.2 makes it clear that Architecture may
only occur in the binary package paragraphs in debian/control, not in
the general paragraph at the top, and so the values of Architecture in
debian/control may only be those that are meaningful for a single binary
package.

Contrariwise, the value of Architecture in the .dsc is an aggregation
constructed by dpkg-source of the Architecture fields for all binary
packages built by that source package.  It is therefore meaningful for
it to express a combination of architecture-dependent and
architecture-independent binary packages.

I would recommend closing this bug with no further action.  The current
text appears correct to me.

-- 
Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson@debian.org]

Message #13 received at 845369-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>

To: Olly Betts <olly@survex.com>

Cc: 845369-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#845369: debian-policy: [5.6.8] Not fully updated for "any all"

Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 19:24:33 -0800

Olly Betts <olly@survex.com> writes:

> In policy 3.9.3.0 (at least according to upgrading-checklist.txt):

>      5.6.8
>           The `Architecture' field in `*.dsc' files may now contain the
>           value `any all' for source packages building both
>           architecture-independent and architecture-dependent packages.

> The current 5.6.8 does describe `any all`, but unfortunately it also still
> contains this paragraph which is no longer correct since this change:

>      In the main `debian/control' file in the source package, this field
>      may contain the special value `all', the special architecture wildcard
>      `any', or a list of specific and wildcard architectures separated by
>      spaces.  If `all' or `any' appears, that value must be the entire
>      contents of the field.  Most packages will use either `all' or `any'.

This paragraph isn't talking about that file.  As it says at the top of
the paraagraph, this is about the debian/control file.  The *.dsc file of
a source package is not the debian/control file.

If you read down two more paragraphs, you'll find:

    In the Debian source control file .dsc, this field contains a list of
    architectures and architecture wildcards separated by spaces. When the
    list contains the architecture wildcard any, the only other value
    allowed in the list is all.

which does indeed allow the behavior that you expect.

Unfortunately, the Debian control file format contains multiple fields
that have different allowable values and different semantics in the
various possible files, and one has to read carefully to see whether a
particular value is allowed in that context.  One could imagine a world in
which this was designed differently and different fields were used in
those different contexts, but that's water under the bridge at this point.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.