Le Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 07:24:32PM +0200, Vincent Bernat a écrit : > > On the behalf of the FTP master team, Ansgar Burchardt explained me why > the dependency to libjs-jquery is not enough to fulfill the "provide the > sources" part since the source in the archive may not correspond to the > version included in the upstream tarball. > > I agree with the rationale. However, here is mine: > > 1. The license allows redistribution and modification of the minified > version without having the sources. Therefore, we are only dealing > with DFSG here. > 2. The package does not need the shipped minified version to work > correctly. We replace it with another minified version from another > package. This may mean that from the point of view of the > package, the sources provided in libjs-jquery is "equivalent" to the > sources that would have been provided with the package. > 3. Repacking the original tarball just to remove those files is extra > work. > > I know this is tedious but what others think about this matter?
Hi Vincent, I also find this rule tedious and demotivating. Also, I regularly see people losing their time uploading repacked sources that are not binary identical to the ones in our archive (repacking scripts can not guarantee this), or fighting with pristine-tar branches in Git. In the case of sourceless redistributable files, I would prefer to save my time by ignoring them. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- 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/20120816212631.ga31...@falafel.plessy.net
