On March 11, 2014 10:50:10 AM Paul Wise wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Ben Finney wrote: > > I'd love to see clarification of the ftp-team's position on obfuscated > > files in source packages, preferably in an official location for future > > reference.
Recalling that the context of the question was whether "it is acceptable to
leave ${some file} in a tarball if it is unused" ...
> Source missing
>
> Your package contains files that need source but do not have it. These
> include PDF and PS files in the documentation, or auto-generated
> files.
... I guess if a file is not needed for the build, then that file does not
"need source" either.
> Generated files
>
> Your package contains generated files (such as compressed .js
> libraries) without corresponding original form. They're not considered
> as the preferred form of modification,
Nor would it need to be modified, so it shouldn't matter that it's not the
"preferred form for modification".
I can understand that it is nicer if upstream can be persuaded to clean things
up and not do either of the above. I also realize that some folks may prefer
to re-pack a tarball for "cleanliness" objectives. But are you really
suggesting a distributable but "non source" file in the tarball can't simply be
ignored? What objective would that serve?
Regards,
-Steve
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
