Re: RFC declarative built-using field generation
Am 09.02.2013 19:01, schrieb Philipp Kern:
> On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:16:30PM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
>> On 09/02/2013 08:38, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> The proposal made in the Policy bug, which seems quite reasonable to
>>> me, is that we should only annotate packages with Built-Using if there
>>> are license implications to the inclusion of the source. Documenting
>>> things like libgcc.a that have explicit, open use licenses that don't
>>> place any further restrictions on the resulting binaries doesn't seem
>>> like a good use of anyone's time. Even to annotate them on the gcc
>>> package side.
>> DFSG #2: Source Code
>>
>> The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
>> source code as well as compiled form.
>>
>> IIRC, Built-Using is a hint to the archive to keep around the source of
>> packages that have binaries included in other packages. If Debian is to
>> remain DFSG-compliant, I don't think we should make a distinction between
>> things like libgcc.a and everything else.
>
> The concrete version of libgcc.a being used to link your binary really
> doesn't matter.
But it is ok to insist on using the exact binary version for build-depending
on source packages when it's not needed? This only seems to be driven by the
current dak implementation.
Matthias
Reply to: