Hi,
Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes:
> Ansgar Burchardt <ans...@debian.org> writes:
>> A try at this:
>
>> Some binary packages incorporate material derived from source
>> or compiled code derived from other source packages. In this case
>> this field must be used to list all other source packages necessary
>> to obtain the full corresponding source code.
>> <footnote (or not?)>
>> It indicates to the archive software to keep the listed source
>> packages around until the binary package disappears.
>> </footnote>
>
> I think this is the right idea. How about:
>
> <p>
> Some binary packages incorporate parts of other packages when built
> but do not have to depend on those packages. Examples include
> linking with static libraries or incorporating source code from
> another package during the build. In this case, the source packages
> of those other packages are a required part of the complete source
> (the binary package is not reproducible without them), but there is
> no other binary package control field to capture this relationship.
> Build-Depends in the source package is not adequate since it
> (rightfully) does not document the exact version used in the build.
> </p>
>
> <p>
> Therefore, in cases like this where a part of another package is
> incorporated into a binary package, the <tt>Build-Using</tt> field
> must list the corresponding source package for any such binary
> package incorporated during the build, including an "exactly equal"
> ("=") version relation on the version that was used to build that
> binary package.
> </p>
Looks good to me.
> Why are we requiring source packages be listed in Build-Using instead of
> binary packages? The archive software should be able to draw similar
> conclusions from a field listing the binary packages that were
> incorporated into the build, just by taking one additional step, and a
> field listing binary packages is *much* easier to generate.
I think source packages better reflect the meaning of the field (keep
the source available). Listing them will hopefully soon no longer be
more complicated than binary package, see [1].
[1] <http://bugs.debian.org/653575>
In addition listing binaries would likely force the archive software to
keep those specific binary versions around as well, even when they are
no longer needed, for example after a binNMU. (At least I think the
current database layout would require this.)
Regards,
Ansgar
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87obuqw0iq....@marvin.43-1.org
