Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: jquery debate with upstream"):
> Quoting Steve M. Robbins (2014-03-11 07:11:36)
> > 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?
None. I think the file can be disregarded, provided we're sure it's
not used during the build.
> I believe it is exactly the case that Debian do not allow
> (re)distribution of "source" which is not in the preferred form of
> editing.
You have conspicuously failed to answer Jonas's question. What
objective does removing these files and repacking the tarballs serve ?
> Debian have a certain definition of Freedoms [...]
Whose freedom is impaired, and in what way, by the presence of these
useless but ignored files in the tarball ?
> When approaching upstreams about this, we should be careful to not try
> impose our World views onto them, but only share with them how we treat
> their code that they have chosen to share with us, and how it would be
> more convenient for us that they share it slightly different. They are
> commonly not doing anything "wrong", just by a different freedom logic
> than ours.
In this subthread I think we are having an internal conversation about
what our own logic is, within Debian. I'm sorry to say that I still
fail to see the logic behind your apparent (but not explicitly stated)
point of view.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/21279.10430.860867.946...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
