Hi Simon, On Mon, 2025-03-03 at 11:58 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: > I believe the phrase > > "does not directly incorporate the contents" > > still leaves room for ambiguity though. Certaintly to some way of > reading "foo" WILL incorporate the particular bits coming from "baz" > directly, since those bits are provided identically within the "bar" > package. > > Can we find some better articulation of the concept?
Perhaps a footnote on what "directly incorporating" means?
Note that you do not need to list source packages recursively. For example,
consider the following situation: A package named "foo" declares
Static-Built-Using on "bar". "bar" declares Static-Built-Using on "baz". As
long as "foo" does not directly incorporate the contents [#]_ of the "baz"
package during its build, then "foo" must not list "baz" in its
Static-Built-Using field.
[...]
.. [#]
A good indication is whether "baz" needs to be listed the Build-Depends of
"foo". In other words, if upstream's buildsystem in "foo" explicitly looks
for "baz" or its source code imports something provided by the "baz", then
"baz" should be listed in the Static-Built-Using field of "foo".
--
Maytham
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
