Re: RFC declarative built-using field generation
Peter Samuelson <email@example.com> writes:
> [Joachim Breitner]
>> this seems to be a good disk-space for human-time trade to me as well:
> 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.
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.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>