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

Re: RFC declarative built-using field generation

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.

Kind regards,
Loong Jin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: