Bug#1069256: debian-policy: clarify requirement for use of Static-Built-Using
On Tue, Aug 05, 2025 at 12:34:59PM +0200, Fabian Grünbichler wrote:
> [...]
> > That's good to know. I also doubt there's much local reliance on
> > those, given how little they've been used within the main archive, and
> > I expect that anyone who is relying on them locally will be competent
> > enough to cope with this proposed (breaking) change. I would also
> > expect that any local users relying on this field would appreciate the
> > benefit of the changes proposed.
>
> CCing Stefan, who currently schedules binNMUs based on Built-Using and
> Extra-Source-Only, IIRC. not sure whether RT already acts on S-B-U
> anywhere as well, in addition to that?
Dear Fabian,
Thanks! I don't know about Extra-Source-Only.
> > [...]
> >
> > If there is consensus on this, then given what you've pointed out
> > above, we should probably tighten up the wording of the proposal to
> > indicate that Static-Built-Using should only list packages whose
> > upgrading should trigger a rebuild of the package, for example
> > packages whose content is embedded in the resulting binary package.
> > But the compiler used should not generally be included in this field.
>
> note that for Rust, this is for the most part not true - except for
> niche use cases (nostd, like when building embedded things or Linux
> kernel stuff), the standard library which is part of the toolchain
> packages *is* statically linked into any Rust executable. and even for
> nostd, the same applies to a smaller standard library (libcore).
>
> so while Static-Built-using rustc could go away following this line of
> reasoning (which I do agree with - grave compiler codegen bugs warrant
> rebuilding the world anyway), libstd-rust-dev would remain.
Ah, interesting. Would one want to/need to automatically rebuild
every Rust package every time libstd-rust-dev is updated? (I don't
know Rust anywhere near well enough to know the answer to this
question.)
Best wishes,
Julian
Reply to: