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

Re: RFC declarative built-using field generation

On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:16:30PM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> 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.

The concrete version of libgcc.a being used to link your binary really
doesn't matter. All source code is provided and you can look up with
what version it was built from the logs (barring maintainer uploads) and
retrieve the source package from snapshot. I'm not sure if keeping tons
of eglibc source packages pinned in all suites achieves anything useful,
given that we don't have to do it.

If license reasons come into play we have to protect our mirrors from
complains about violations of the redistribution rules. The suites
themselves should hence contain sources so that they are mirrored.
For the sources of other packages we can point people to snapshot.

Kind regards
Philipp Kern

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: