Re: Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive
Le Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:56:28AM +0200, Paul Wise a écrit :
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > do you think that the attached patch would solve the problem ?
> There are more reasons for using Built-Using than licenses, for example:
> Rebuilding against updated versions of static libraries.
> Rebuilding the debian-installer-*-netboot-* packages.
> I don't think we should restrict usage of Built-Using to only
> license-related reasons, there are also other reasons.
The problem to solve here is to find a clear and concise way to describe how
this field is used. The current description in the Policy has confused some
people and made them think or worry that they were asked unreasonable work.
I paste below the current wording in the Policy 3.9.4. If you have an
improvement to propose, that would be much appreciated !
7.8 Additional source packages used to build the binary - Built-Using
Some binary packages incorporate parts of other packages when built but do not
have to depend on those packages. Examples include linking with static
libraries or incorporating source code from another package during the build.
In this case, the source packages of those other packages are a required part
of the complete source (the binary package is not reproducible without them).
A Built-Using field must list the corresponding source package for any such
binary package incorporated during the build , including an "exactly equal"
("=") version relation on the version that was used to build that binary
A package using the source code from the gcc-4.6-source binary package built
from the gcc-4.6 source package would have this field in its control file:
Built-Using: gcc-4.6 (= 4.6.0-11)
A package including binaries from grub2 and loadlin would have this field in
its control file:
Built-Using: grub2 (= 1.99-9), loadlin (= 1.6e-1)
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan