Am 13.10.2015 um 22:23 schrieb Walter Landry: > Ole Streicher <oleb...@debian.org> wrote: >> Walter Landry <wlan...@caltech.edu> writes: >>> Ole Streicher <oleb...@debian.org> wrote: >>>> What are the general guidelines here? Somewhere in written form? The >>>> DFSG does not contain a hint here. >>> The rule of thumb that I have seen applied is that 'source' is the >>> preferred form of modification for the people making modifications. >>> If a person really prefers editing 1400 character lines, then that is >>> the source. However, you can not just state that you prefer that. >> I'd prefer just to ignore the line: it is a comment line that is not >> needed for the functionality, so I see no reason to touch it at all. The >> only reason to touch it for me would be to delete it. > Sorry, I had not noticed that it was a comment. I am confused as to > why it is there. Do you know why? Could you get upstream to delete > this seemingly useless line? That would solve your immediate problem > and clean up the code.
Upstream included the code on my request as an external source. I think it would be not a good idea to ask them for the removal of the line, since then their version would deviate from the original source. I am not a specialist at all for Javascript, and all I try is just to keep a Python package (with a very responsive upstream!) in a good shape. Unfortunately, nobody with Javascript experience and also nobody from the Lintian team (who wrote the heuristics to identify this file as non-source, and also underlined that they still claim the file to be non-source) took part in the discussion here so far. It looks a bit weird for me that they create a Lintian "error" and seem not to have a (even preliminary and discussable) "source" definition. So, I think that the lintian tag in question is more a "wild guess" and should be marked as such. Best regards Ole