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

Re: Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:08:55AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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 case.

I guess the general answer you're looking for depends on the use cases
Built-Using wants to address (is it licensing? is it code embedding to
help the security team? is it just metadata to note what has been built
against what?). I confess that the answer to this preliminary question
is not clear to me (anymore).

> 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
> Built-Using?)

I'm no Haskell expert, but AFAIR the language behave very similarly to
OCaml in this respect.  OCaml does static linking (of native OCaml code,
not necessarily of external C libraries) by default, so, at the very
minimum, you have code embedding in all executables. For OCaml you might
also have code inlining between libraries; I'm not sure if that's the
case also for Haskell or not.

Now, does that mean that you need to add OCaml/Haskell software to the
list of exceptions? I'm not sure, it really depends on the intended
Built-Using use cases.

Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Former Debian Project Leader  . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: