On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:16:30PM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote: > On 09/02/2013 08:38, Russ Allbery wrote: > > The proposal made in the Policy bug, which seems quite reasonable to me, > > is that we should only annotate packages with Built-Using if there are > > license implications to the inclusion of the source. Documenting things > > like libgcc.a that have explicit, open use licenses that don't place any > > further restrictions on the resulting binaries doesn't seem like a good > > use of anyone's time. Even to annotate them on the gcc package side.
> DFSG #2: Source Code > The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in > source code as well as compiled form. A strict constructivist intrepretation of this rule, requiring us to carry the exact version of the gcc source package that was used in building each binary shipped in a Debian release, is not in any way beneficial to our users. When you rebuild the package for any reason, whether for debugging, for local modification or for revving the distro package, you will automatically get the latest version of libgcc.a - and that's that. It's precisely *because* this doesn't benefit users that even the FSF does not impose the GPL on this code. > IIRC, Built-Using is a hint to the archive to keep around the source of > packages that have binaries included in other packages. If Debian is to > remain DFSG-compliant, I don't think we should make a distinction between > things like libgcc.a and everything else. We unequivocally *should* make such a distinction. Built-Using was created to make it easier to ensure our releases are complying with our upstreams' license requirements, it is *not* there to enable foolish crusades in the name of the DFSG. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
