Re: Built-Using and Cython

Nikolaus Rath wrote: > Russ Allbery writes: >> The main thing we want to avoid is having Build-Using for every single >> package in the archive because of libgcc, because that seems pointless and >> annoying. Similarly, I doubt we need that for the inline code in eglibc >> headers, given that no

Re: Built-Using and Cython

Russ Allbery writes: > Nikolaus Rath writes: > >> Russ says that it's only necessary "there are licensing reasons", but >> I'm not sure what that means. It seems that pretty much every open >> source license requires you to make the source code available (including >> Cython), so I'm not sure why

Re: Built-Using and Cython

Nikolaus Rath writes: > Russ says that it's only necessary "there are licensing reasons", but > I'm not sure what that means. It seems that pretty much every open > source license requires you to make the source code available (including > Cython), so I'm not sure why e.g. in the above case it's

Re: Built-Using and Cython

Jonathan Nieder writes: > Hi Nikolaus, > > Nikolaus Rath wrote: > >> If a debian package uses Cython in its build process, does it need to >> declare Built-Using: cython? > > I don't think typical licenses require that, no. > > The policy text could use a lot of help in this area. See > http://bu

Re: Built-Using and Cython

Hi Nikolaus, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > If a debian package uses Cython in its build process, does it need to > declare Built-Using: cython? I don't think typical licenses require that, no. The policy text could use a lot of help in this area. See http://bugs.debian.org/688251 if you have ideas fo

Built-Using and Cython

Hello, Cython converts a Python-like source code into .c or .cpp, which can then be compiled into a Python extension (as .so) with a C compiler. The Cython generated C file contains lots of glue code and helper functions that presumably may change from Cython version to Cython version. If a debi