Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > Nikolaus Rath <nikol...@rath.org> writes: > >> Russ says that it's only necessary "there are licensing reasons", but >> I'm not sure what that means. It seems that pretty much every open >> source license requires you to make the source code available (including >> Cython), so I'm not sure why e.g. in the above case it's not necessary. > > libgcc does not require this. [...]
Thanks, very interesting. Though what I meant with "the above" was actually the Cython case :-). >> Also, I was expecting that Built-Using would also be important to figure >> out which packages need to be recompiled when there's e.g. a security >> update of the binary package from which sources were included. Am I >> mistaken about that? > > Yes, we should also capture that use case. > > The main thing we want to avoid is having Build-Using for every single > package in the archive because of libgcc, because that seems pointless and > annoying. Similarly, I doubt we need that for the inline code in eglibc > headers, given that no one else does that and hasn't for years and years, > so regardless of the specific license text, it's pretty clear this isn't a > general upstream expectation. To me this all sounds as if packages using Cython in the build process *should* use Build-Using: cython then. Cython certainly doesn't have the same license exception that gcc has, and there also isn't much of a precedence (compared to eglibc). Best, -Nikolaus -- »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.« PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C -- 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/8738w7wwt4....@vostro.rath.org
