Re: Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive
On 09/23/2013 10:56, Paul Wise wrote:
> 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.
Yes, licensing isn't the only reason: if there was a clang-avr package
build-depending on clang-source (or gcc-avr built using a gcc relicensed
under a non-copyleft license), the source for the clang-avr package
should still be kept around and this would include the clang-source package.
In the end the problem comes down to defining what the "source" of a
binary package is. I doubt there are disagreements that the source for a
package X build-depending on Y-source includes Y-source or src:Y as in
the example above. In general I would also include statically linked
libraries. However I wouldn't think that language runtimes that are
added automatically by the compiler are part of the source of a binary.
There's probably no way to define "source"; in non-trivial cases there's
always some judgement involved. But if you find a clearer wording for
Policy, sure, go ahead.
Ansgar
Reply to: