Hi, Il 16/10/20 02:53, Drew Parsons ha scritto: > Source: boost1.71 > Followup-For: Bug #972213 > X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org > > Would it make sense to use the Built-Using [1] header? > e.g. > Built-Using: python3.8 python3.9 > > dh_python3 knows if the module includes extensions > (*_python*.so.) and could inject the pythons into Built-Using. > > [...] > > [1] > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#additional-source-packages-used-to-build-the-binary-built-using
The precise web page you are linking hints that this use of Built-Using would be improper: "This field should be used only when there are license or DFSG requirements to retain the referenced source packages. It should not be added solely as a way to locate packages that need to be rebuilt against newer versions of their build dependencies". That said, I forgot to mention that the Python versions Boost is compiled against is also tracked in the package names provided by libboost-python1.71.0, which are currently libboost-python1.71.0-py38 and libboost-python1.71-py39. Is this better? More in general, there can be dozens of ways to advertise which Python versions are used to build Boost.Python, but it is not clear to me how this information should be consumed. Giovanni. -- Giovanni Mascellani <g.mascell...@gmail.com>
