Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive

Hello, On Mon, Dec 25 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: > Seconded the above change and with or without the wording change > discussed in the other part of this thread. Thank you for your review. Here is the current diff awaiting a final second: diff --git a/policy/ch-relationships.rst

Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive

Sean Whitton writes: > diff --git a/policy/ch-relationships.rst b/policy/ch-relationships.rst > index 3a73f7b..499bed9 100644 > --- a/policy/ch-relationships.rst > +++ b/policy/ch-relationships.rst > @@ -598,17 +598,26 @@ earlier for binary packages) in order to invoke

Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive

Sean Whitton 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

Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive

Hello Ansgar, 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

Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive

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... Ansgar

Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive

control: tag -1 +patch Hello, On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 05:30:12PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > The attached patch is a third attempt, which underlines that the Built-Using > field is particularly useful when a given package, contributing contents > included in another package, can not be

Processed: Re: Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive

Processing control commands: > tag -1 +patch Bug #688251 [debian-policy] Built-Using description too aggressive Added tag(s) patch. -- 688251: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=688251 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive

Le Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 05:30:12PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit : The attached patch is a third attempt, which underlines that the Built-Using field is particularly useful when a given package, contributing contents included in another package, can not be replaced by a later version. It

Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive

Thanks everybody for your contributions to clarify the uses case of the Built-Using field. The attached patch is a third attempt, which underlines that the Built-Using field is particularly useful when a given package, contributing contents included in another package, can not be replaced by a

Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive

user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org tag 688251 - patch usertags 688251 discussion thanks Le Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:08:55AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : The basic problem that we're trying to solve is that nearly every package in Debian incorporates code from gcc and/or libc into the

Processed: Re: Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was ple...@debian.org). tag 688251 - patch Bug #688251 [debian-policy] Built-Using description too aggressive Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #688251

Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive

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-*

Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive

Le Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:56:28AM +0200, Paul Wise a écrit : 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

Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Charles Plessy wrote: I paste below the current wording in the Policy 3.9.4. If you have an improvement to propose, that would be much appreciated ! The wording doesn't appear confusing to me so I'm not the best person to propose wording changes. The

Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive

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.

Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive

Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes: On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Charles Plessy wrote: I paste below the current wording in the Policy 3.9.4. If you have an improvement to propose, that would be much appreciated ! The wording doesn't appear confusing to me so I'm not the best person to

Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive

Dear all, there has been discussions about the Built-Using field and the way it is currently documented in the Policy. I think that there are a short and a long term issue. - In the short term, we can correct the wording to match the FTP team's current practice, and reduce the confusion