Re: RFC declarative built-using field generation

[Peter Samuelson <peter@p12n.org>]

[Joachim Breitner]
> this seems to be a good disk-space for human-time trade to me as well:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699333

I'm a bit confused.  Given that perhaps 99% of Built-Using would be for
trivial things like crt1.o and libgcc.a, which are concentrated into a
relatively tiny number of packages, it seems to make more sense to
annotate those packages - not unlike our shlibs files.

Of course, since many files like crt1.o and libgcc.a are covered under
Build-Essential, it may not be obvious to a tool which packages were
actually needed by the build - most packages don't need to
Build-Depends: libc6-dev or gcc.  But at least for the libc6 case, it's
fairly obvious that anything that pulls in a "Depends: libc6" via
shlibs should also generate a "Built-Using: libc6-dev
({current-version})" due to use of one or more of those object files.
I have no idea if there are similar heuristics for use of static
libgcc.