Am 09.02.2013 19:01, schrieb Philipp Kern: > 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. >> >> 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. > > The concrete version of libgcc.a being used to link your binary really > doesn't matter.
But it is ok to insist on using the exact binary version for build-depending on source packages when it's not needed? This only seems to be driven by the current dak implementation. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5117a831.1090...@debian.org
