On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:07:53AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> No. The requirement is that the source is part of the source package.
[citation needed]
The only requirement I know of is that the source is part of *a*
source package, not necessarily the same one.
(consider "Built-Using")
--
Op vrijdag 25 april 2014 19:34:02 schreef Daniel Pocock:
> When FTP masters approve a package from NEW, they might well see
that
> the js is not really in use - but somebody (upstream or maintainer)
> may change something after 6 months and the js does get used
That argument goes for just about a
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 05:12:15PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 26 avril 2014 16:34 CEST, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
> :
>
> >>Good to know. I was using a dedicated "dfsg" branch, but the workflow is
> >>crappy in this case. But currently, nothing we can do with
> >>debian/copyright?
> >
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 07:13:33PM +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> I would argue that conceptually the same is true of well-known
> minified JS libs: you take the new unminified, substitute it, and are
> done with it -- that the exact source code changes is not important,
> as long as
Jakub Wilk writes:
> * Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo , 2014-04-26,
> 19:13:
>> From some hundreds of orig.tar that I have around, the following
>> examples are generated by autoconf but .ac/.in seems missing. Few in my
>> survey, but some of them are important.
>>
>>acl-2.2.52/configure
>>attr-2
* Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo , 2014-04-26, 19:13:
From some hundreds of orig.tar that I have around, the following
examples are generated by autoconf but .ac/.in seems missing. Few in
my survey, but some of them are important.
acl-2.2.52/configure
attr-2.4.47/configure
$ ls {acl,attr}-*/
2014-04-25 23:32 Wookey:
+++ Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo [2014-04-25 09:42 +0100]:
... a recent/ongoing thread, about using dh-autoreconf or something
similar ...
Nobody in the thread tried to apply the same logic with configure
script compared to minified .js. The case of configure scrip
❦ 26 avril 2014 16:34 CEST, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
:
>>Good to know. I was using a dedicated "dfsg" branch, but the workflow is
>>crappy in this case. But currently, nothing we can do with
>>debian/copyright?
>
> I am not sure of what you mean.
>
> If you don't have it in the repackaged
2014-04-26 11:00 Vincent Bernat:
❦ 26 avril 2014 01:31 CEST, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
:
Compared to that amount of work, stripping a few files from a tarball
using uscan is utterly trivial and I don't see why it is a problem.
It's quite a bit harder to do the right thing and persuade ups
2014-04-26 02:30 Charles Plessy:
Le Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 03:48:51PM +0200, Bas Wijnen a écrit :
Ignoring a bug because you set your priorities is understandable and
(in some cases) good. Adding an override is not.
There are also benefits from using an override:
- It shows that the message h
❦ 26 avril 2014 08:12 CEST, "Steve M. Robbins" :
> That sounds like you you're asking N developers to do a bunch of extra
> busywork so that 1 person's job is made easier. Here's an alternative: if
> you
> can indeed scan the archive for bad files, add that detector to the archive-
> rebuild
❦ 26 avril 2014 01:31 CEST, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
:
>>> Compared to that amount of work, stripping a few files from a tarball
>>> using uscan is utterly trivial and I don't see why it is a problem.
>>> It's quite a bit harder to do the right thing and persuade upstream to
>>> not includ
On 26/04/14 01:31, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> 2014-04-26 00:08 Vincent Bernat:
>> ❦ 25 avril 2014 17:40 CEST, Neil Williams :
>>
>>> Compared to that amount of work, stripping a few files from a tarball
>>> using uscan is utterly trivial and I don't see why it is a problem.
>>> It's
On April 25, 2014 11:02:29 PM Ben Finney wrote:
> Neil Williams writes:
> > On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 01:16:04 +0100
> >
> > Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> > > I don't think that we should go and do the tedious work of repack
> > > thousands of packages because of this, with no real benefit in
On April 25, 2014 04:40:26 PM Neil Williams wrote:
> Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > part. But if the minified javascript files in the upstream tarball
> > aren't used when building the binary packages because the javascript
> > libraries are already packaged in Debian, then it isn't possible that
> >
Le Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 03:48:51PM +0200, Bas Wijnen a écrit :
>
> Ignoring a bug because you set your priorities is understandable and
> (in some cases) good. Adding an override is not.
There are also benefits from using an override:
- It shows that the message has been received by the mainta
2014-04-26 00:08 Vincent Bernat:
❦ 25 avril 2014 17:40 CEST, Neil Williams :
Compared to that amount of work, stripping a few files from a tarball
using uscan is utterly trivial and I don't see why it is a problem.
It's quite a bit harder to do the right thing and persuade upstream to
not incl
❦ 25 avril 2014 17:40 CEST, Neil Williams :
> Compared to that amount of work, stripping a few files from a tarball
> using uscan is utterly trivial and I don't see why it is a problem.
> It's quite a bit harder to do the right thing and persuade upstream to
> not include them.
How to handle th
+++ Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo [2014-04-25 09:42 +0100]:
>
> ... a recent/ongoing thread, about using dh-autoreconf or something
> similar ...
> Nobody in the thread tried to apply the same logic with configure
> script compared to minified .js. The case of configure script is even
> worse, in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/04/14 17:40, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:47:41 +0200 Jeroen Dekkers
> wrote:
>
>> At Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:58:35 +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>> There is no doubt in my mind that if the rules are not strict
>>> then sooner o
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:47:41 +0200
Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> At Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:58:35 +0200,
> Daniel Pocock wrote:
> > There is no doubt in my mind that if the rules are not strict then
> > sooner or later somebody will sneak something bad into some minified
> > Javascript - maybe it will happ
At Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:58:35 +0200,
Daniel Pocock wrote:
> There is no doubt in my mind that if the rules are not strict then
> sooner or later somebody will sneak something bad into some minified
> Javascript - maybe it will happen upstream and the DD won't even be
> aware of it.
Yes, and that's
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:47:20AM +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> Thus, the file itself being source code,
You are the only one who uses a definition of source code that includes
generated files. This is confusing; please don't do that.
> So I believe that the lintian error consid
I agree with you. An obfuscated source isn't source and should'nt be in
source packages. But in binary packages, yes. Also, as say the GNU
LibreJS standard for publish free JavaScript code, If there are a
comment which is an URL to the source and the corresponding source is
free, the obfuscated cod
On 04/25/2014 03:48 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> a) the minified .js is still source code, by definition.
I don't agree with this.
On 04/25/2014 03:48 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> It's interpreted in different implementations of an ISO-approved
> interpreted language,
Neil Williams writes:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 01:16:04 +0100
> Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
>
> > I don't think that we should go and do the tedious work of repack
> > thousands of packages because of this, with no real benefit in terms
> > of freedom (or any other) for our users -- provid
On 25/04/14 02:16, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
>
> I don't think that we should go and do the tedious work of repack
> thousands of
> packages because of this, with no real benefit in terms of freedom (or
> any
> other) for our users -- provided that we depend and link to the canonical
> v
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 21:58:57 +1000
Craig Small wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 09:41:37AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > The package is wrong if lintian reports the error. Fix the package.
>
> Not always, the way lintian checks is wrong. I'm not buying into is
> minimised source or not, but no
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 09:41:37AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> The package is wrong if lintian reports the error. Fix the package.
Not always, the way lintian checks is wrong. I'm not buying into is
minimised source or not, but no matter which way you sit on that issue,
the lintian checks for so
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:47:20 +0100
"Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo" wrote:
> 2014-04-25 8:49 GMT+01:00 Matthias Urlichs :
> > Hi,
> >
> > Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo:
> >> a) the minified .js is still source code, by definition.
> >
> > Sorry, but _my_ definition of "source code" is "whatever yo
2014-04-25 8:49 GMT+01:00 Matthias Urlichs :
> Hi,
>
> Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo:
>> a) the minified .js is still source code, by definition.
>
> Sorry, but _my_ definition of "source code" is "whatever you customarily
> edit when you want to change something".
>
> _Nobody_ in their right mind
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 01:16:04 +0100
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> I don't think that we should go and do the tedious work of repack
> thousands of packages because of this, with no real benefit in terms
> of freedom (or any other) for our users -- provided that we depend
> and link to the
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 23:20:00 -0500
Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo dijo [Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 01:27:02AM
> +0100]:
> > To both things above, I don't think that this is different to my
> > example of 'configure' script without corresponding .ac/.in; and I
> > don't think that an
2014-04-25 5:20 GMT+01:00 Gunnar Wolf :
> Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo dijo [Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 01:27:02AM +0100]:
>> To both things above, I don't think that this is different to my example of
>> 'configure' script without corresponding .ac/.in; and I don't think that
>> anybody
>> is thinking
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 20:48:47 +0100
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Moving from debian-devel-games to debian-devel@ for opinions about if
> this lintian warning is OK to override or not, or in general about
> what to do with lintian warning about minified JS.
Haven't we had this d
On Thu, 2014-04-24 at 23:20 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo dijo [Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 01:27:02AM +0100]:
> > To both things above, I don't think that this is different to my example of
> > 'configure' script without corresponding .ac/.in; and I don't think that
> > anybo
Hi,
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo:
> a) the minified .js is still source code, by definition.
Sorry, but _my_ definition of "source code" is "whatever you customarily
edit when you want to change something".
_Nobody_ in their right mind edits minified Javascript.
IMHO, in an ideal world we woul
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo dijo [Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 01:27:02AM +0100]:
> To both things above, I don't think that this is different to my example of
> 'configure' script without corresponding .ac/.in; and I don't think that
> anybody
> is thinking about adding lintian errors for that or consi
Le Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 08:48:47PM +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo a écrit
:
>
> The rationaly for overriding this in sdlgfx, after depending on binary jquery
> and using dh_link for the binary packages, is because I think the lintian
> warning *in this case* is a kind of mistake part and th
Quoting Bas Wijnen (2014-04-25 02:49:56)
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 01:27:02AM +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
>> And just to be clear, my idea was to avoid repacking with e.g. JQuery
>> or other very well known libraries, for which we have the sources in
>> other Debian package presen
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 01:27:02AM +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> I don't think that this is different to my example of 'configure'
> script without corresponding .ac/.in; and I don't think that anybody
> is thinking about adding lintian errors for that or considering those
> scripts
* Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo , 2014-04-25, 01:27:
I don't think that this is different to my example of 'configure'
script without corresponding .ac/.in; and I don't think that anybody is
thinking about adding lintian errors for that or considering those
scripts non-free (??).
I don't know
2014-04-25 01:07 Gunnar Wolf:
And even having a pointer to the upstream project is not enough: We
have to ship full sources, both for (part of) our licenses'
requirements, and to be able to properly support our projects in the
future. If http://some.developer.net/projects/JS-Foo disappears from
2014-04-25 00:02 Jonas Smedegaard:
Quoting Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo (2014-04-25 00:23:33)
2014-04-24 21:31 Jonas Smedegaard:
>Quoting Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo (2014-04-24 21:48:47)
>> a) the minified .js is still source code, by definition.
>
>Which definition?
https://en.wikipedia.or
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo dijo [Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 11:23:33PM +0100]:
> 2014-04-24 21:31 Jonas Smedegaard:
> >Quoting Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo (2014-04-24 21:48:47)
> >>a) the minified .js is still source code, by definition.
> >
> >Which definition?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So
Quoting Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo (2014-04-25 00:23:33)
> 2014-04-24 21:31 Jonas Smedegaard:
> >Quoting Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo (2014-04-24 21:48:47)
> >> a) the minified .js is still source code, by definition.
> >
> >Which definition?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code
> htt
2014-04-24 21:31 Jonas Smedegaard:
Quoting Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo (2014-04-24 21:48:47)
a) the minified .js is still source code, by definition.
Which definition?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minified
Basically, no matter how much you contor
Quoting Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo (2014-04-24 21:48:47)
> a) the minified .js is still source code, by definition.
Which definition?
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reus
Correction:
2014-04-24 20:48 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo:
b) The first lines of the unminified file clearly states the software projects,
^^
minified
version, and URLs to get the non-minified versions, so if users want to
modif
Hi,
Moving from debian-devel-games to debian-devel@ for opinions about if this
lintian warning is OK to override or not, or in general about what to do with
lintian warning about minified JS.
2014-04-24 00:33 Bas Wijnen:
lintian is right that the file does not have source, but we don't ship th
50 matches
Mail list logo
