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