Don Armstrong wrote: > This sort of sounds like Built-Using: only needs to contain things > which the package doesn't already Depends: (or perhaps even > Recommends:) on. [Which would resolve the archive licensing > requirements.] To to usable to ensure GPL compliance, Built-Using needs to specify the precise version of a package that is embedded into another. So even though debian-installer Build-Depends: glibc-pic, it still needs Built-Using: eglibc (= 2.13-35) Russ Allbery wrote: > Maybe we should say that Built-Using is only required if the > license requires that the source be available? (Not sure how to phrase > that.) The problem that it was trying to solve originally was fairly > specific to the GPL, IIRC. Makes sense to me, assuming the gcc runtime library exception allows not providing source corresponding to the libgcc.a linked into a binary. (In practice, given the number of different gcc versions in the archive, we probably have most of the sources covered.) -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature