Bug#944325: please fix this unclear and obtuse phrasing in §7.8 (suggestion provided)
Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> writes:
> diff --git a/policy/ch-relationships.rst b/policy/ch-relationships.rst
> index 140fdf1..8e4d98a 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-relationships.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-relationships.rst
> @@ -661,11 +661,10 @@ field in its control file:
> Built-Using: grub2 (= 1.99-9), loadlin (= 1.6e-1)
> -This field should not be added solely for purposes other than
> -satisfying license or DFSG requirements to provide full source code.
> -In particular, it should not be added solely to enable finding
> -packages that should be rebuilt against newer versions of their build
> -dependencies.
> +This field's purpose is exclusively limited to cases where a package's
> +license or DFSG requirements necessitate its use. In particular,
> +it should not be abused as a convenient way to identify packages that
> +require a rebuild against newer versions of their build dependencies.
> .. [#]
> While ``Build-Depends``, ``Build-Depends-Indep`` and
> I'm not really keen on use of 'abused' as I think it's too aggressive.
> I've also realised that "solely for purposes other than satisfying" is
> actually doing some work here -- it's okay to add Built-Using for other
> purposes so long as you are *also* using it to satisfy licensing
> requirements. Not sure your proposal captures that. Any other
> ideas for better phrasing?
How about:
This field should only be used when there are license or DFSG
requirements to retain the referenced source package. It should not
be added solely as a way to locate packages that need to be rebuilt
against newer versions of their build dependencies.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: