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

[Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>]

Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 28 2017, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> Sean Whitton writes:

>>> +This field should not be used for purposes other than satisfying
>>> +license requirements to provide full source code.

>> The DFSG requires source code to be provided too...

> Can you suggest a better word than 'full' to express the extra copyleft
> requirements that the Built-Using field is getting at?

I think you can address this objection by just saying "license or DFSG
requirements," although in general the DFSG requirements are satisfied by
Build-Depends in my opinion.  We may not have *exactly* the source code
that was used to build the binary in all cases because of things like
static portions of libgcc, but we'll have all the *meaningful* source code
because building against any later version of gcc will produce the same
effective results.  (Or, if not, we have a bug in our build dependencies
or elsewhere.)

Build-Using is more for cases where we have to have *exactly* the source
for legal reasons, even if a slightly different version of the source
would be fine for any practical purpose.  I personally don't think the
DFSG is as strict there, and would be satisfied with any working and
practically equivalent version.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>