Bug#688251: Built-Using description too aggressive

[Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>]

Hi,

Sean Whitton wrote:

> --- a/policy/ch-relationships.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-relationships.rst @@ -598,17 +598,26 @@ earlier for
> binary packages) in order to invoke the targets in
>  Additional source packages used to build the binary - ``Built-Using``
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> -Some binary packages incorporate parts of other packages when built but
> -do not have to depend on those packages. Examples include linking with
> -static libraries or incorporating source code from another package
> -during the build. In this case, the source packages of those other
> -packages are a required part of the complete source (the binary package
> -is not reproducible without them).
> +Some binary packages incorporate parts of other packages when built
> +but do not have to depend on those packages. Examples include linking
> +with static libraries or incorporating source code from another
> +package during the build. In this case, the source packages of those
> +other packages are part of the complete source (the binary package is
> +not reproducible without them).

Is this part just a line-wrapping change?  If so, feel free to check it
in directly to make the normative diff easier to review.

> -A ``Built-Using`` field must list the corresponding source package for
> -any such binary package incorporated during the build, [#]_ including
> -an "exactly equal" ("=") version relation on the version that was used
> -to build that binary package.  [#]_
> +When the license of either the incorporated parts or the incorporating
> +binary package requires that the full source code of the incorporating
> +binary package be made available, the ``Built-Using`` field must list
> +the corresponding source package for any affected binary package
> +incorporated during the build, [#]_ including an "exactly equal" ("=")
> +version relation on the version that was used to build that version of
> +the incorporating binary package.  [#]_
> +
> +This causes the Debian archive to retain the versions of the source
> +packages that were actually incorporated.  In particular, if the
> +versions of the incorporated parts are updated but the incorporating
> +binary package is not rebuilt, the older versions of the incorporated
> +parts will remain in the archive in order to satisfy the license.

Sounds good.

[...]
> @@ -625,6 +634,11 @@ field in its control file:
> 
>      Built-Using: grub2 (= 1.99-9), loadlin (= 1.6e-1)
> 
> +This field should not be used for purposes other than satisfying
> +license or DFSG requirements to provide full source code.  In
> +particular, it should not be used to enable finding packages that
> +should be rebuilt against newer versions of their build dependencies.

This feels overly aggressive to me: if the field is already set, why
wouldn't I use it to find packages to rebuild?  I think the intent is
something closer to "In particular, it should not be added solely to
enable finding packages that should be rebuilt [...]".

That said, seconded.

Thanks,
Jonathan