Re: Built-Using and Cython
Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> writes:
>> Russ says that it's only necessary "there are licensing reasons", but
>> I'm not sure what that means. It seems that pretty much every open
>> source license requires you to make the source code available (including
>> Cython), so I'm not sure why e.g. in the above case it's not necessary.
> libgcc does not require this.
Thanks, very interesting. Though what I meant with "the above" was
actually the Cython case :-).
>> Also, I was expecting that Built-Using would also be important to figure
>> out which packages need to be recompiled when there's e.g. a security
>> update of the binary package from which sources were included. Am I
>> mistaken about that?
> Yes, we should also capture that use case.
> The main thing we want to avoid is having Build-Using for every single
> package in the archive because of libgcc, because that seems pointless and
> annoying. Similarly, I doubt we need that for the inline code in eglibc
> headers, given that no one else does that and hasn't for years and years,
> so regardless of the specific license text, it's pretty clear this isn't a
> general upstream expectation.
To me this all sounds as if packages using Cython in the build process
*should* use Build-Using: cython then. Cython certainly doesn't have the
same license exception that gcc has, and there also isn't much of a
precedence (compared to eglibc).
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«
PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C