[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian Policy released

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

Reply to: