Re: Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive
tag 688251 - patch
usertags 688251 discussion
Le Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:08:55AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> 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
Hi Russ and everybody,
would the attached patch be accurate for the C compiler ?
For the C library, since I do not understand well where and when some code
is added to the binary, I have a hard time writing something clear.
If my patch is a good start, could somebody improve it ?
Have a nice week-end,
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
>From e61b6e81b923d4d39b5089e87e9cad02140d5cc9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Charles Plessy <email@example.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 21:21:25 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] Policy: Built-Using is not necessary for runtime exception
code from GCC.
policy.sgml | 9 +++++++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 113429b..9352a2a 100644
@@ -5569,8 +5569,13 @@ Replaces: mail-transport-agent
<tt>Build-Depends</tt> in the source package is not adequate since
it (rightfully) does not document the exact version used in the
- including an "exactly equal" ("=") version relation on the version
+ </footnote>, except when the incorporated code originates from the
+ GNU C compiler and is covered by the GCC Runtime Library Exception.
+ This would require the <tt>Built-Using</tt> field in an
+ unreasonably large number of packages.
+ It includes an "exactly equal" ("=") version relation on the version
that was used to build that binary package<footnote>
The archive software might reject packages that refer to