On 09/23/2013 10:56, Paul Wise wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Charles Plessy wrote: >> do you think that the attached patch would solve the problem ? > > There are more reasons for using Built-Using than licenses, for example: > > Rebuilding against updated versions of static libraries. > Rebuilding the debian-installer-*-netboot-* packages. > > I don't think we should restrict usage of Built-Using to only > license-related reasons, there are also other reasons.
Yes, licensing isn't the only reason: if there was a clang-avr package build-depending on clang-source (or gcc-avr built using a gcc relicensed under a non-copyleft license), the source for the clang-avr package should still be kept around and this would include the clang-source package. In the end the problem comes down to defining what the "source" of a binary package is. I doubt there are disagreements that the source for a package X build-depending on Y-source includes Y-source or src:Y as in the example above. In general I would also include statically linked libraries. However I wouldn't think that language runtimes that are added automatically by the compiler are part of the source of a binary. There's probably no way to define "source"; in non-trivial cases there's always some judgement involved. But if you find a clearer wording for Policy, sure, go ahead. 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/52404606.6010...@debian.org
