Re: RFH: How to compile swf files from source
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote: [Stuff about .FLA files] As a follow-up, Martin Owens has written some code to extract FLA files: http://doctormo.org/2010/08/06/fla-extract/ http://doctormo.org/2010/08/04/flash-sources/ -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktiksg52xiky7btgtx8oihekmnsqfnuzu4xhf9...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFH: How to compile swf files from source
OoO En ce début d'après-midi nuageux du jeudi 05 août 2010, vers 14:15, Paul Wise p...@debian.org disait : I had a package which also ships a SWF along with a FLA and an AS. I assumed that SWF could be built from FLA and AS. I did not find how and therefore, I just removed the SWF from the binary package. I think that usually the AS would not be distributed like that, normally it would be inside the FLA file. Perhaps the SWF only consists of code and the AS is split out as a convenience. You might try using mtasc on the AS file to see what you get as a result. canvas.as:12: characters 0-3 : parse error Unexpected var It seems that mtasc only understands ActionScript 2. This is not really important in my case since upstream also wants to get rid of the SWF. Since it seems there is a lot of bug reports about those SWF files, it would be nice that people who knows how those tools work put a page in the wiki to explain how a SWF could be built with tools in Debian. -- I WILL NOT BARF UNLESS I'M SICK I WILL NOT BARF UNLESS I'M SICK I WILL NOT BARF UNLESS I'M SICK -+- Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 8F15 pgplnbVTZ1r6h.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFH: How to compile swf files from source
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Vincent Bernat ber...@debian.org wrote: canvas.as:12: characters 0-3 : parse error Unexpected var It seems that mtasc only understands ActionScript 2. Correct. There are no free tools to build ActionScript 3, only Adobe's stuff. The mtasc authors moved on to creating their own language (haxe) to build SWF files from. important in my case since upstream also wants to get rid of the SWF. Since it seems there is a lot of bug reports about those SWF files, Great! it would be nice that people who knows how those tools work put a page in the wiki to explain how a SWF could be built with tools in Debian. It would be much better to replace the SWF files with normal HTML if possible and HTML5 tags if HTML4 is inadequate. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktim+lgka=m=av6at1b2svk4k6atkyu+n3p7zy...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFH: How to compile swf files from source
OoO En cette fin de nuit blanche du jeudi 05 août 2010, vers 05:52, Paul Wise p...@debian.org disait : In my package ampache it ships xspf_jukebox.fla and xspf_jukebox.swf and I recently received bug #591202 which states: ... Are there debian tools available to do this? If so what are they? The FLA format is binary and completely undocumented by Adobe so nothing except the Flash authoring tools read it. But people working with Flash programs uses FLA format as source format? In this case, FLA could be the preferred form of modification and hence the source file. The fact that it is difficult to modify is annoying but we cannot require that each program must be able to be modified with ease only with tools in main. I had a package which also ships a SWF along with a FLA and an AS. I assumed that SWF could be built from FLA and AS. I did not find how and therefore, I just removed the SWF from the binary package. -- /* * Should be panic but... (Why are BSD people panic obsessed ??) */ 2.0.38 /usr/src/linux/net/ipv4/ip_fw.c pgpBMp2N0xOpP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFH: How to compile swf files from source
Hi, Am Mittwoch, den 04.08.2010, 17:25 -0500 schrieb Peter Samuelson: [Peter Samuelson] Source code is a means to an end. The end is the ability of the end user to customize the software. If you get source code but no way to build a new .swf file from it, this end is not served. Also, I'm a proponent of the idea of always building our packages from source - just to make sure we actually _can_, thus preserving the principle above. I think it is a valuable service to the end-user to express the build process using Build-Depends and debian/rules. They don't need to say OK, I fixed this bug or typo or whatever, now how do I recompile it? They don't need to wonder whether it's even _possible_ to rebuild what they've changed (without, for example, going out and buying some non-free tool). there were also cases of code-genearting tools (gob2 in my case) where the package was built from the generated .c files instead the .gob source files, and it happened that the .gob files were incompatible with gob2 as shipped by Debian (they used unreleased features). I wanted to change the program and could not. This particular issue has been fixed by now, though, but it makes clear why building from source is important. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFH: How to compile swf files from source
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 2:20 AM, Vincent Bernat ber...@debian.org wrote: But people working with Flash programs uses FLA format as source format? Only those who specifically rely on Adobe's Flash authoring tools. Anyone who uses Linux and builds their Flash files using free tools will usually deal with plain text ActionScript (or other programming language) and assets in normal media formats like JPEG, PNG, GIF, WAV, MP3 etc. In this case, FLA could be the preferred form of modification and hence the source file. Correct. This is a similar situation to a Microsoft Word document being source for a HTML document except that we can't read or modify FLA. Games have been rejected from Debian or moved to non-free before because we cannot read or modify the source code for their data component. The fact that it is difficult to modify is annoying but we cannot require that each program must be able to be modified with ease only with tools in main. FLA is neither modifiable nor buildable with Debian. I had a package which also ships a SWF along with a FLA and an AS. I assumed that SWF could be built from FLA and AS. I did not find how and therefore, I just removed the SWF from the binary package. I think that usually the AS would not be distributed like that, normally it would be inside the FLA file. Perhaps the SWF only consists of code and the AS is split out as a convenience. You might try using mtasc on the AS file to see what you get as a result. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimpfgkavrcpzrzdgvzxksbojyft6x6d_tvqq...@mail.gmail.com
RFH: How to compile swf files from source
Hello all, In my package ampache it ships xspf_jukebox.fla and xspf_jukebox.swf and I recently received bug #591202 which states: ampache ships a swf file but does not build it from source. I am curious to know which part of Debian Policy states that this is required? I have search but was unable to find anything. If the source code accompanies the precompiled file how does that make the package non compliant with DFSG? (bug #591196) Are there debian tools available to do this? If so what are they? It seems I am not the only one having this problem #591199, #591383. Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Charlie Smotherman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1280958574.29450.39.ca...@debian
RFH: How to compile swf files from source
Hello all, In my package ampache it ships xspf_jukebox.fla and xspf_jukebox.swf and I recently received bug #591202 which states: ampache ships a swf file but does not build it from source. I am curious to know which part of Debian Policy states that this is required? I have search but was unable to find anything. If the source code accompanies the precompiled file how does that make the package non compliant with DFSG? (bug #591196) Are there debian tools available to do this? If so what are they? It seems I am not the only one having this problem #591199, #591383. Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Charlie Smotherman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1280958365.29450.37.ca...@debian
Re: RFH: How to compile swf files from source
[Charlie Smotherman] ampache ships a swf file but does not build it from source. I am curious to know which part of Debian Policy states that this is required? I have search but was unable to find anything. It is the principle. If I am an end user, and I want to modify your .swf file on my Debian system, how do I do it? What do I edit? Do I need to go through a separate step to obtain a usable .swf with my modifications in it? Source code is a means to an end. The end is the ability of the end user to customize the software. If you get source code but no way to build a new .swf file from it, this end is not served. (Although Debian doesn't strictly subscribe to the FSF's Four Freedoms (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), I think the FSF's explanation of freedom 1 is pretty good.) Peter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100804215911.gg3...@p12n.org
Re: RFH: How to compile swf files from source
[Peter Samuelson] Source code is a means to an end. The end is the ability of the end user to customize the software. If you get source code but no way to build a new .swf file from it, this end is not served. Also, I'm a proponent of the idea of always building our packages from source - just to make sure we actually _can_, thus preserving the principle above. I think it is a valuable service to the end-user to express the build process using Build-Depends and debian/rules. They don't need to say OK, I fixed this bug or typo or whatever, now how do I recompile it? They don't need to wonder whether it's even _possible_ to rebuild what they've changed (without, for example, going out and buying some non-free tool). ...However, my view is a bit controversial; a lot of people think there should be exceptions for certain categories of generated files, like those output by the autotools. I don't see why, except for historical inertia, but there it is. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100804222549.gh3...@p12n.org
Re: RFH: How to compile swf files from source
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 16:59 -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: [Charlie Smotherman] ampache ships a swf file but does not build it from source. I am curious to know which part of Debian Policy states that this is required? I have search but was unable to find anything. It is the principle. If I am an end user, and I want to modify your .swf file on my Debian system, how do I do it? What do I edit? Do I need to go through a separate step to obtain a usable .swf with my modifications in it? Source code is a means to an end. The end is the ability of the end user to customize the software. If you get source code but no way to build a new .swf file from it, this end is not served. (Although Debian doesn't strictly subscribe to the FSF's Four Freedoms (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), I think the FSF's explanation of freedom 1 is pretty good.) If I interpret your above statement correctly, there is no policy that states that this is required. Is that a fair statement? If there is nothing in policy to support bug #519202, how can it be considered valid? I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything I'm just trying to understand how a bug can be filed against my package and be considered a serious violation of policy when there is nothing in the policy manual stating such. Charlie -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1280965190.30107.48.ca...@debian
Are binary packages required to be built from the corresponding source files? (was: RFH: How to compile swf files from source)
Charlie Smotherman cj...@cableone.net writes: ampache ships a swf file but does not build it from source. I am curious to know which part of Debian Policy states that this is required? I have search but was unable to find anything. I would interpret it as follows: Policy §2.2.1 states “Every package in _main_ must comply with the DFSG (Debian Free Software Guidelines).” To comply with DFSG §2, the source package must include the binary package's corresponding source code. To comply with DFSG §3, the package must allow the recipient to make modifications and build a package suitable for redistribution. Policy §2.2.1 further states “In addition, the packages in _main_ […] must not require a package outside of _main_ for compilation or execution […]”. Perhaps that could be interpreted in a way that permits the package build process to ignore the recipient's changes to the source file and continue to supply the pre-compiled binary, but that interpretation seems like a perverse one. If the package build process doesn't use the source, as modified by the recipient, then it's disingenuous to claim that DFSG §3 is being met. Perhaps the letter is followed, but I would maintain that its intent is not. Perhaps I misunderstand the intent, though. It's happened before :-) -- \ “Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who | `\ speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.” —Ambrose | _o__) Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_, 1906 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87lj8l3mva@benfinney.id.au
Re: Are binary packages required to be built from the corresponding source files? (was: RFH: How to compile swf files from source)
On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 10:48 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Charlie Smotherman cj...@cableone.net writes: ampache ships a swf file but does not build it from source. I am curious to know which part of Debian Policy states that this is required? I have search but was unable to find anything. I would interpret it as follows: Policy §2.2.1 states “Every package in _main_ must comply with the DFSG (Debian Free Software Guidelines).” To comply with DFSG §2, the source package must include the binary package's corresponding source code. To comply with DFSG §3, the package must allow the recipient to make modifications and build a package suitable for redistribution. Policy §2.2.1 further states “In addition, the packages in _main_ […] must not require a package outside of _main_ for compilation or execution […]”. Perhaps that could be interpreted in a way that permits the package build process to ignore the recipient's changes to the source file and continue to supply the pre-compiled binary, but that interpretation seems like a perverse one. If the package build process doesn't use the source, as modified by the recipient, then it's disingenuous to claim that DFSG §3 is being met. Perhaps the letter is followed, but I would maintain that its intent is not. Perhaps I misunderstand the intent, though. It's happened before :-) Ben, Thanks for you insight, I found it informative and educational. Charlie -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1280971778.30943.2.ca...@debian
Re: RFH: How to compile swf files from source
On Aug 04, Charlie Smotherman cj...@cableone.net wrote: ampache ships a swf file but does not build it from source. I am curious to know which part of Debian Policy states that this is required? I have search but was unable to find anything. The part stating that packages cannot depend on components not in main, it applies to build dependencies too. While it is not mandatory to always rebuild everything from source (just be sure to have a valid reason to not do it) it must be possible to do it without installing software which is not part of Debian. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFH: How to compile swf files from source
In my package ampache it ships xspf_jukebox.fla and xspf_jukebox.swf and I recently received bug #591202 which states: ampache ships a swf file but does not build it from source. I am curious to know which part of Debian Policy states that this is required? I have search but was unable to find anything. If the source code accompanies the precompiled file how does that make the package non compliant with DFSG? (bug #591196) If you can not build all your package with tools available in Debian main, then your package must move to contrib. See policy 2.2.1, everything in main must be able to build with stuff available in main. The easiest way to ensure you always know this works is by not ever using binary files provided by upstream, but building them yourself. Additionally, who guarantuees you that upstreams binary files are sane? He can have added any amount of crap, either willingly or by having a compromised system. Rebuild and you and all your users are safe from that too. -- bye, Joerg [2.6.15.4 direkt nach 2.6.15.3] HE Linus muss Gentooler hassen. formorer wieso? HE Naja, die dürften ihre optimierten Kernel gerade fertig gebaut haben und müssen jetzt aus prompter Versionitis auf das Ausprobieren verzichten und den neuen kompilieren... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87ocdhafvg@delenn.ganneff.de
Re: RFH: How to compile swf files from source
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Charlie Smotherman cj...@cableone.net wrote: In my package ampache it ships xspf_jukebox.fla and xspf_jukebox.swf and I recently received bug #591202 which states: ... Are there debian tools available to do this? If so what are they? The FLA format is binary and completely undocumented by Adobe so nothing except the Flash authoring tools read it. Yesterday (looking for a way to liberate the source code for the movie Sita Sings the Blues) I found someone started reverse engineering the fla file format, but no there are no free tools to read it AFAICT: http://wiki.benjaminwolsey.de/FLA_Format I also noted that more recent Flash authoring tools use an XML-based format that would presumably be slightly less opaque. Please get your upstream to split the fla file into its component parts and use mtasc/swfmill/swftools/haxe to create the swf file instead of the Flash authoring tools. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktime--djstrhi3trelu73ymku4jt0x1_svres...@mail.gmail.com
