Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> writes: > On Mon, Aug 28 2017, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: >> Sean Whitton writes:
>>> +This field should not be used for purposes other than satisfying >>> +license requirements to provide full source code. >> The DFSG requires source code to be provided too... > Can you suggest a better word than 'full' to express the extra copyleft > requirements that the Built-Using field is getting at? I think you can address this objection by just saying "license or DFSG requirements," although in general the DFSG requirements are satisfied by Build-Depends in my opinion. We may not have *exactly* the source code that was used to build the binary in all cases because of things like static portions of libgcc, but we'll have all the *meaningful* source code because building against any later version of gcc will produce the same effective results. (Or, if not, we have a bug in our build dependencies or elsewhere.) Build-Using is more for cases where we have to have *exactly* the source for legal reasons, even if a slightly different version of the source would be fine for any practical purpose. I personally don't think the DFSG is as strict there, and would be satisfied with any working and practically equivalent version. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
