On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:16:30PM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote: > On 09/02/2013 08:38, Russ Allbery wrote: > > The proposal made in the Policy bug, which seems quite reasonable to me, > > is that we should only annotate packages with Built-Using if there are > > license implications to the inclusion of the source. Documenting things > > like libgcc.a that have explicit, open use licenses that don't place any > > further restrictions on the resulting binaries doesn't seem like a good > > use of anyone's time. Even to annotate them on the gcc package side. > DFSG #2: Source Code > > The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source > code > as well as compiled form. > > IIRC, Built-Using is a hint to the archive to keep around the source of > packages > that have binaries included in other packages. If Debian is to remain > DFSG-compliant, I don't think we should make a distinction between things like > libgcc.a and everything else.
The concrete version of libgcc.a being used to link your binary really doesn't matter. All source code is provided and you can look up with what version it was built from the logs (barring maintainer uploads) and retrieve the source package from snapshot. I'm not sure if keeping tons of eglibc source packages pinned in all suites achieves anything useful, given that we don't have to do it. If license reasons come into play we have to protect our mirrors from complains about violations of the redistribution rules. The suites themselves should hence contain sources so that they are mirrored. For the sources of other packages we can point people to snapshot. Kind regards Philipp Kern
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
