Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> writes: > Hello, > > On Fri 03 Nov 2023 at 05:01pm -07, Xiyue Deng wrote: > >> I thought mentioning dropping Built-Using from arch:all package could be >> an acceptable reason, which in turn also follows Lintian's suggestion :) >> But do let me know if I should further clarify. > > But why couldn't an arch:all package have Built-Using? Built-Using, per > Policy, is for license issues. arch:any vs. arch:all isn't > determinative.
So a little further reading from the policy[1] and the lintian bug[2]
helped me understand the usage of "Built-Using" a bit better: it's used
to include other source package required for building without having to
depend on them. So technically it's not mutually exclusive with
arch:all as stated in the bug. However, in the case of
persp-perspective, I tried with or without it and it doesn't make any
difference. What's important is that ${elpa:Depends} correctly added
elpa-perspective and elpa-projectile to the dependency list of the
binary package. So I think in the end dropping it should be OK.
Still, it makes sense to clarify the actual reason to drop it, so I've
updated the changelog entry to reflect this fact[3]. PTAL, TIA!
[1]
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#additional-source-packages-used-to-build-the-binary-built-using
[2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=999785
[3]
https://salsa.debian.org/emacsen-team/persp-projectile/-/commit/a0c39b5d53d96f7e85b163f9cb530efbf34b6166
--
Xiyue Deng
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
