On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 10:25:27 +0800 Maytham Alsudany
wrote:
[...]
Hi Maytham,
thanks for your work.
Consider this seconded by me, too.
best,
werdahias
Hi Simon,
On Mon, 2025-03-03 at 11:58 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> I believe the phrase
>
>"does not directly incorporate the contents"
>
> still leaves room for ambiguity though. Certaintly to some way of
> reading "foo" WILL incorporate the particular bits coming from "baz"
> directly,
Maytham Alsudany writes:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Mon, 2025-02-03 at 13:32 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> [...]
>> Maybe adding an example for embedded static C object code like this
>> would help clarify the intention.
>
> Would adding the following after the first paragraph be sufficient in
> your
Hi Simon,
On Mon, 2025-02-03 at 13:32 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
[...]
> Maybe adding an example for embedded static C object code like this
> would help clarify the intention.
Would adding the following after the first paragraph be sufficient in
your view?
Note that you do not need to lis
Maytham Alsudany writes:
> +``Static-Built-Using``
> +~~
> +
> +This ``Static-Built-Using`` field must list source packages with an
> +"exactly equal" ("=") version relation, which had their contents (like
> +source code or data) incorporated into the binary package during the
Hi Peter,
On Sun, 2024-07-14 at 17:40 +0100, Peter B wrote:
> Any DDs on the Pascal team able and willing to second this?
Yes I do.
We will recommend using this new field and
close https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=997948 as it becomes now
the responsibility of packages maintainer
Hello,
On Sat 04 Jan 2025 at 05:20pm +08, Maytham Alsudany wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-08-21 at 23:45 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
>>
>> > +A package that needs domain name suffix data from the publicsuffix
>> > +binary package would list it in the ``Static-Built-Using`` field like
>> > +so:
>>
>> Perha
Hi,
Most of the problems with wording have been fixed, except for the one I
note below.
On Wed, 2024-08-21 at 23:45 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
>
> > +A package that needs domain name suffix data from the publicsuffix
> > +binary package would list it in the ``Static-Built-Using`` field like
> >
On Tue, 2024-09-24 at 20:32 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 at 23:45:30 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > On Sat, 2024-04-27 at 17:40:49 +0800, Maytham Alsudany wrote:
> > > +A package statically linked with the libraries contained in the
> > > +librust-gtk4-dev and librust-pulsect
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 at 23:45:30 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sat, 2024-04-27 at 17:40:49 +0800, Maytham Alsudany wrote:
> > +A package statically linked with the libraries contained in the
> > +librust-gtk4-dev and librust-pulsectl-rs-dev binary packages, where
> > +the latter is licensed under
Hi!
On Sat, 2024-04-27 at 17:40:49 +0800, Maytham Alsudany wrote:
> Thanks for your input and suggestions. I've attached an updated patch with
> several changes, including improving making the description of the field more
> specific, adding another example that is not Go/Rust related, and improvi
On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 01:40:11PM +0800, Maytham Alsudany wrote:
> > Below is the relevant part of the updated patch, to save you from
> > downloading
> > the attachment:
> >
> > ``Static-Built-Using``
> > ~~
> >
> > This ``Static-Built-Using`` field must list source package
Any DDs on the Pascal team able and willing to second this?
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: Bug#1069256: debian-policy: clarify requirement for use of
Static-Built-Using
Resent-Date:Sun, 14 Jul 2024 16:11:11 + (UTC)
Resent-From:debian-de...@lists.debian.org
Date
On 14/07/2024 16:54, Maytham Alsudany wrote:
Hi,
Ping for further feedback or seconds for proposed policy change to
clarify and document the use of the Static-Built-Using field.
Hi Maytham,
could also mention that this field would be useful for fpc & lazarus
packages.
https://bugs.debian.or
Hi,
Ping for further feedback or seconds for proposed policy change to
clarify and document the use of the Static-Built-Using field.
On Sat, 2024-04-27 at 17:40 +0800, Maytham Alsudany wrote:
> Thanks for your input and suggestions. I've attached an updated patch with
> several changes, including
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 13:40:11 +0800 Maytham Alsudany
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ping for further feedback or seconds for proposed policy change to
> clarify and document the use of the Static-Built-Using field.
Hi Maytham,
thanks for your work. LGTM too, consider this seconded.
best,
werdahias
Hi,
Ping for further feedback or seconds for proposed policy change to
clarify and document the use of the Static-Built-Using field.
On Sat, 2024-04-27 at 17:40 +0800, Maytham Alsudany wrote:
> Thanks for your input and suggestions. I've attached an updated patch with
> several changes, including
Hi all,
I would greatly appreciate it if you could have a look at the proposal attached
below to add a new section to the Debian Policy detailing the use of the Static-
Built-Using and differentiating it from the Built-Using field.
Could you please ensure that it aligns with your goals in the Gol
On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 05:40:49PM +0800, Maytham Alsudany wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Thanks for your input and suggestions. I've attached an updated patch with
> several changes, including improving making the description of the field more
> specific, adding another example that is not Go/Rust rel
Hi everyone,
Thanks for your input and suggestions. I've attached an updated patch with
several changes, including improving making the description of the field more
specific, adding another example that is not Go/Rust related, and improving the
Rust example to show the simultaneous use of Static-
Regarding ;-
"(for example linking against static libraries, builds for
source-centered languages such as Go or Rust, usage of header-only
C/C++ libraries, injecting data blobs into code, etc.)"
Perhaps Pascal & Lazarus could be added to that list for clarity? [1]
Regards,
Peter
[1] https:
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 07:59:19AM +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Go and Rust packagers,
>
> On Thu 18 Apr 2024 at 11:29pm +03, Maytham Alsudany wrote:
>
> > With the increasing amount of programs in Debian that Build-Depend and
> > statically link with Golang and Rust libraries, it's importa
Hi!
On Thu, 2024-04-18 at 23:29:11 +0300, Maytham Alsudany wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.7.0.0
> Severity: normal
> X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-de...@lists.debian.org
> In early 2022, Guillem added support for a new Static-Built-Using field to
> dpkg, encouraging packagers to use it over
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:29:11PM +0300, Maytham Alsudany wrote:
> +``Static-Built-Using``
> +~~
IMO this should not only state when it is to be used, but also what
it is used for and by whom. IOW who is the intended receiver. What
will they do with the info provided in this f
Maytham Alsudany writes:
> In early 2022, Guillem added support for a new Static-Built-Using field to
> dpkg, encouraging packagers to use it over Built-Using to specify
> statically-linked dependencies [2]. The commit message states the following:
>
> This field mimics the previous Built-Using
Hello Go and Rust packagers,
On Thu 18 Apr 2024 at 11:29pm +03, Maytham Alsudany wrote:
> With the increasing amount of programs in Debian that Build-Depend and
> statically link with Golang and Rust libraries, it's important that
> the Debian Policy clearly sets out the requirements for declarin
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.7.0.0
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-de...@lists.debian.org
Dear Policymakers,
With the increasing amount of programs in Debian that Build-Depend and
statically link with Golang and Rust libraries, it's important that the
Debian Policy clearly sets out the
27 matches
Mail list logo
