On 10/27/2011 03:03 AM, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 07:08:14PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : >> >> But with more liberal licenses, we should certainly accept that the >> minified files are their own sources much like we accept any other blob of >> data under a free license. > > Hello Raphaël and everybody, > > one of the problem with minified JavaScript libraries is that it is difficult > to know what they really do. Are they really what the upstream author thinks > they are, or was he tricked in cut-and-pasting a fake version containing a > spyware ? > > On the other hand, if the minified file you would like to distribute matches > exactly a minified file that has been distributed by Debian in the past, then > indeed, why not running that version ? You are an experienced developer and I > trust you to understand, balance and negociate the costs and benefits on a > case-by-case basis.
Because even the old minified version should not have been distributed unless we have the not minified version available (at least in the source of the package), too? > For the compliance with DFSG – and this is the main message here – we could > reach it considering all the packages that are part of the same release, by > using the dpkg source format 3.0 (git), which would be an efficient way to > distribute past source versions and point at the preferred one at the same > time. How the source is distributed does not matter. Please don't abuse this for yet another dpkg 3.0 git discussion. -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.de http://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprints: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4eb11b45.5000...@bzed.de
