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)
--
It
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 any
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 05:12:15PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
❦ 26 avril 2014 16:34 CEST, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com :
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
On April 25, 2014 04:40:26 PM Neil Williams wrote:
Jeroen Dekkers jer...@dekkers.ch 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
On April 25, 2014 11:02:29 PM Ben Finney wrote:
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 01:16:04 +0100
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think that we should go and do the tedious work of repack
thousands of packages because
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 codeh...@debian.org :
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.
❦ 26 avril 2014 01:31 CEST, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com :
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
❦ 26 avril 2014 08:12 CEST, Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca :
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-
2014-04-26 11:00 Vincent Bernat:
❦ 26 avril 2014 01:31 CEST, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com :
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
❦ 26 avril 2014 16:34 CEST, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com :
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
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
* Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo manuel.montez...@gmail.com, 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
Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org writes:
* Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo manuel.montez...@gmail.com, 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.
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 it
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 would
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.
2014-04-25 5:20 GMT+01:00 Gunnar Wolf gw...@gwolf.org:
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
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 23:20:00 -0500
Gunnar Wolf gw...@gwolf.org 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
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 01:16:04 +0100
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo manuel.montez...@gmail.com 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
2014-04-25 8:49 GMT+01:00 Matthias Urlichs matth...@urlichs.de:
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
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:47:20 +0100
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-04-25 8:49 GMT+01:00 Matthias Urlichs matth...@urlichs.de:
Hi,
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo:
a) the minified .js is still source code, by definition.
Sorry, but _my_ definition of
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
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 21:58:57 +1000
Craig Small csm...@debian.org 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
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
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 01:16:04 +0100
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo manuel.montez...@gmail.com 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
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,
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
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 why
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:47:41 +0200
Jeroen Dekkers jer...@dekkers.ch 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
-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
jer...@dekkers.ch 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
+++ 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 my
❦ 25 avril 2014 17:40 CEST, Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org :
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.
2014-04-26 00:08 Vincent Bernat:
❦ 25 avril 2014 17:40 CEST, Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org :
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
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
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
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
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
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
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/Source_code
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?
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
* Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo manuel.montez...@gmail.com, 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
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
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 present in
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 thus
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
46 matches
Mail list logo
