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 important that > > the Debian Policy clearly sets out the requirements for declaring > > these statically-linked libraries. > > I think Maytham is right that updating Policy for this is a priority. > It has been bothering me that misunderstandings of Built-Using have been > proliferating somewhat among newer contributors. See also #999785. > > Could you take a look at his proposed changes to Policy in #1069256, > please, and confirm they successfully reconcile Debian Policy with your > team policies?
Speaking for the Rust side - I'd say they match our expected usage of the field. A slight rephrasing of "linked to libraries in other packages" might match it even better, since in Rust's case, we are usually talking about linking to libraries compiled from sources shipped in other packages (librust-X-dev only contains the sources and possibly helper scripts needed to build them, but not the compiled library). But it also covers static linking of native libraries, so the current phrasing matches that. Might be bikeshedding/nitpicky though ;) > I think that we should also include an explanation of why we have chosen > to do this using a new field in d/control like Static-Built-Using. > Policy is meant to be a record of our lessons learned in building a > distribution, and the lessons learned in trying to handle these new > hyper-statically linked language ecosystems seem important. > > My immediate question is why the Haskell and OCaml team's approaches, > were not copied. They seem to work well and don't require a new field. > That seems worth writing down. I am not sure about the details of their approach... are those available somewhere? > Thank you Maytham for your work so far. Thanks to both of you! :)
