On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 09:00:35AM +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > Here's an example I found using codesearch, from the grub package...
Thanks for the example. I tried doing a Google search, but I couldn't find anything relevant, perhaps because of robot.txt constraints. In particular there was nothing in Debian Policy, or in Debian Wiki's description of static linking[1]. [1] https://wiki.debian.org/StaticLinking > Please don't manually mantain a field in the source package's d/control > that's supposed to exist only in binary packages. I agree; which is why I was pushing back on the Built-Using requirement when there was zero support or explanation I could find for how to do this. At the very list, a warning against manually encoding the Built-Using in Debian Policy would have been helpful. In fact, the examples given in Debian Policy seem to imply that manually encoding the field in the source package was considered a good thing... The e2fsck-static package is supplied in the hopes of being helpful to users who are trying to cover a corrupted root file system, since it avoids dependencies that might not be available. But if this was going to be super painful, I was getting very tempted just to yank e2fsck-static as not being worth it, given that we've been shipping without Built-Using for over a decade without anyone saying boo, and in my opinion, not really preventing any kind of User Freedom. I acknowledge that technically speaking that the LGPL requires it, but it's the sort of thing which is actively making me rethink the value of Copyleft as requiring bureaucratic nonsense. It just made me super cranky.... Thanks to Aurelien to supplying a patch. - Ted
