Re: Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive
Paul Wise <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> I paste below the current wording in the Policy 3.9.4. If you have an
>> improvement to propose, that would be much appreciated !
> The wording doesn't appear confusing to me so I'm not the best person
> to propose wording changes.
The basic problem that we're trying to solve is that nearly every package
in Debian incorporates code from gcc and/or libc into the resulting
binary. So, currently, Policy says that basically every package in the
archive needs Built-Using. This obviously isn't what we want to have
The question is how to make it clear that's not the intent, which requires
figuring out how to separate the other use cases from the gcc and glibc
I suppose one possible approach is to just explicitly exclude the C
library and compiler from the current wording. (Although I'm not sure
that should be the case for every compiler; for example, do some of the
more complex compilers for languages like Haskell actually need
> I would suggest leaving the current wording, monitoring usage of the
> field and filing bugs on any packages that use the field in an
> "improper" way.
We've already had multiple complaints and multiple confused people due to
the current wording.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>