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 code is free too.
Le 25/04/2014 15:41, Thomas Goirand a écrit : > 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, and it is valid code. > > It is compiled code, not *source* code. It's impossible to modify as-is. > > On 04/25/2014 03:48 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: >> Even in obfuscated form, with minor transformations it's probably >> easier to understand that some other proper source code out there. > > No! :) > > On 04/25/2014 03:48 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: >> So it can be argued that this lintian error is not correct, it is >> source code even if obfuscated, and open to interpretation in any >> case. Saying that source code is missing for a file that is actually >> proper source code is a special case and should be treated >> differently. > > This minified source code is as helpful as the output of a binary that > has been decompiled. It is *not* something someone will work on, > especially if there's the equivalent non-obfuscated source code available. > > On 04/25/2014 03:48 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: >> 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. > > In Debian, we don't package URLs, but human readable source code. If > your source package doesn't include source code for *anything*, then > it's a serious violation of the DFSG and social contract. > > On 04/25/2014 03:48 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: >> This is vastly different to the normal idea of binaries without >> sources > > No it's not, it's exactly the same thing. > > On 04/25/2014 03:48 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: >> 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 > > And therefore, the obfuscated code is considered non-DFSG free. > > On 04/25/2014 03:48 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: >> So the presence of the file in the source tarball is not diminishing >> the freedom of users, and the actions proposed by lintian don't >> enhance user freedom, from my point of view. > > This is backward thinking. You'd better think this way: the presence of > the file doesn't, in any way, help your users. Quite the opposite: it > makes the source package bigger, and makes users look at files which > they can't anyway modify. So why would you keep it? Realistically, the > only reason is because it makes your maintainers life easier. Any other > point of view is just wrong, IMO. > > On 04/25/2014 03:48 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: >> 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. > > This is only where I can agree with you. > > On 04/25/2014 03:48 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: >> I don't think that overriding hides the problem... > > I do. Overrides are there only to cover false-positives. What is the > reason for yours, if not hiding issues? > > Thomas > > -- 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/535a671c.6080...@me.com
