On 14490 March 1977, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>> I have referred this to CTTE
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=830978
> grunt is now available in main, a big part of this issue is resolved,
Thanks for that work to all who did it.
--
bye, Joerg
On Wednesday 13 July 2016 08:41 PM, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> I have referred this to CTTE
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=830978
grunt is now available in main, a big part of this issue is resolved,
but I need help to fix the remaining issue.
RFH http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/b
On Monday 11 July 2016 05:43 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>
>> There is a bug with severity serious filed against libjs-handlebars [1]
>
> I note that this bug was filed by an FTP-team member.
I have referred this to CTTE
http://bugs.debian.org/cg
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> There is a bug with severity serious filed against libjs-handlebars [1]
I note that this bug was filed by an FTP-team member.
> I agree it is nice to be able to browsetrify it in debian, but I don't
> think it is serious enough to be remov
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 12:06:57PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There is a bug with severity serious filed against libjs-handlebars [1]
> (it is also a bug in ruby-handlebars-assets).
>
> The corresponding source code is present in libjs-handlebars (only in
> experimental right now, but
On 2016, ജൂലൈ 11 2:46:23 PM IST, Neil Williams wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:06:57 +0530
>Pirate Praveen wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> There is a bug with severity serious filed against libjs-handlebars
>> [1] (it is also a bug in ruby-handlebars-assets).
>>
>> The corresponding source code is prese
Pirate Praveen writes:
> On Monday 11 July 2016 01:09 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Yet it is built with a tool not in Debian, from a different form of the
>> work that upstream actually uses for reading and modifying — the source
>> form of the work. So that compiled form is not the source form of th
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> I don't see a reason why a minified file should be removed from the
> source tarball and would require repacking.
It seems reasonable to remove non-source files from upstream tarballs
if you are also removing non-redistributable or non-free
Am 11.07.2016 um 11:16 schrieb Neil Williams:
> 2: The fact that the minified code in Debian differs from the minified
> code from upstream is irrelevant as long as upstream and Debian have the
> same unminified source code and upstream agree to support the
> unminified source code. Any minified fi
On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:06:57 +0530
Pirate Praveen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There is a bug with severity serious filed against libjs-handlebars
> [1] (it is also a bug in ruby-handlebars-assets).
>
> The corresponding source code is present in libjs-handlebars (only in
> experimental right now, but it c
Pirate Praveen writes:
> On Monday 11 July 2016 01:09 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Yet it is built with a tool not in Debian, from a different form of the
> > work that upstream actually uses for reading and modifying — the source
> > form of the work. So that compiled form is not the source form of
On Monday 11 July 2016 01:09 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Yet it is built with a tool not in Debian, from a different form of the
> work that upstream actually uses for reading and modifying — the source
> form of the work. So that compiled form is not the source form of the
> work.
There is a reason f
On 2016-07-11 09:19, Vincent Bernat wrote:
This debate already happened one year ago:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2015/08/msg00427.html
There was no conclusion. Different people have different opinions. In
my
opinion, there are different way to consider what's the preferred form
of
Pirate Praveen writes:
> The compiled form is also readable and modifiable source form.
Yet it is built with a tool not in Debian, from a different form of the
work that upstream actually uses for reading and modifying — the source
form of the work. So that compiled form is not the source form o
❦ 11 juillet 2016 08:56 CEST, Pirate Praveen :
>>> If the build tool needed to build the compiled form of the work is not
>>> yet in Debian, by my understanding that means the work cannot be in
>>> Debian in that compiled form.
>>>
>>
>> But the difference here is:
>>
>> The compiled form is a
On Monday 11 July 2016 12:21 PM, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> On Monday 11 July 2016 12:18 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>> If the build tool needed to build the compiled form of the work is not
>> yet in Debian, by my understanding that means the work cannot be in
>> Debian in that compiled form.
>>
>
> But t
On Monday 11 July 2016 12:18 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> If the build tool needed to build the compiled form of the work is not
> yet in Debian, by my understanding that means the work cannot be in
> Debian in that compiled form.
>
But the difference here is:
The compiled form is also readable and m
Pirate Praveen writes:
> There is a bug with severity serious filed against libjs-handlebars [1]
> (it is also a bug in ruby-handlebars-assets).
The bug report (bug#817092) has IMO a misleading title.
The software may or may not be free; what is at issue is that a compiled
file is non-source an
18 matches
Mail list logo
