On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 20:48:47 +0100 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com> 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 discussion already? It's already been established within the Debian project that minified JS is *not* source code, despite what you may think. I'm working through this with another package at the moment, we're going to have the source code in the upstream git tree and miniify during the package build. Developers can have minified js in their working copies but those files are not included in the .orig.tar.gz. All the template links specify the .min.js but those are built from the js source code and allows me to link to the packaged ones where the versions match. Minified JS is *not* source code. Been there, fought through all that once, let's *not* flog this particular dead horse again. > I was only interested in this discussion because sdlgfx was > mentioned, and I wanted to say that it was not done carelessly or > without consideration, and that I don't share your view or your > suggestions that we're violating the license or creating any problem > by doing this. It's about the project deeming that a minified JS is not source code. That's the state of play and that's what lintian specifies. Lintian is correct. Replace the .min.js in the .orig.tar.gz with the editable source code and minify during the build. Nobody edits .min.js files and the source package must include editable source. > I don't think that the lintian check should be removed in the general > case of source-is-missing. I don't think that it should be an error > for minified JS, or that it should be the same error. minified JS was explicitly one of the reasons for the decision. > a) the minified .js is still source code, by definition. No. It is not editable source code - this must exist in the source package, not some third party site or other binary. > b) The first lines of the unminified file clearly states the software > projects, version, and URLs to get the non-minified versions, so if > users want to modify the code, they can go there or take the version > from their Debian system. It needs to be editable in the source package. .dsc & .orig.tar.gz > So the lintian error is in fact equating "source-is-missing" with > that this actually a practical problem, presumably because it affects > user freedom. Minified JS is a practical problem - nobody edits it. > b) There's value in the warning, in the sense that if one wants to > modify the code, one would prefer to use the unminified version -- > the source of the source file, and we provide that in the binary > packages, which is the main added value of Debian (not the > redistribution of the source -- again, as long as it's legal). It needs to be in the source package, just like the rest of the source code. > d) Thus, saying that the source of the file is missing is technically > true in the sense that it was generated by another file, in part not > true because it's correct and valid source code, saying that it's not > the preferred form of modification is true, but then again it points > to the unminified version, so it's not trying to hide the source code > away from users or hindering freedom in any way. False. > For all of the above, it is my opinion that the whole discussion > about it is rather theoretical and pointless; and the dance of > repackaging the upstream tarballs in this case, and probably for all > uses of jquery, is a waste of time, and Debian users would see more > benefits if contributors spent time elsewhere. > Actually, I would ignore the error rather than override it and fix it > later in some way, but it was not my decision. But I sponsored the > package and I don't think that it's wrong. The package is wrong if lintian reports the error. Fix the package. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
