On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:08:55AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > The question is how to make it clear that's not the intent, which > requires figuring out how to separate the other use cases from the gcc > and glibc case.
I guess the general answer you're looking for depends on the use cases Built-Using wants to address (is it licensing? is it code embedding to help the security team? is it just metadata to note what has been built against what?). I confess that the answer to this preliminary question is not clear to me (anymore). > I suppose one possible approach is to just explicitly exclude the C > library and compiler from the current wording. (Although I'm not sure > that should be the case for every compiler; for example, do some of > the more complex compilers for languages like Haskell actually need > Built-Using?) I'm no Haskell expert, but AFAIR the language behave very similarly to OCaml in this respect. OCaml does static linking (of native OCaml code, not necessarily of external C libraries) by default, so, at the very minimum, you have code embedding in all executables. For OCaml you might also have code inlining between libraries; I'm not sure if that's the case also for Haskell or not. Now, does that mean that you need to add OCaml/Haskell software to the list of exceptions? I'm not sure, it really depends on the intended Built-Using use cases. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
