Andreas Noteng
> Den 17. apr. 2015 kl. 01.32 skrev Ian Jackson
> :
>
> Andreas Noteng writes ("Re: Minified javascripts in packages"):
>> Guess I'll have to start over again and figure out how to manually
>> concatenate the separate upstream files into one h
❦ 16 avril 2015 21:09 +0200, Andreas Noteng :
>> While I still maintain my previous position that concatenated js
>> is DFSG-free, even if it is not what upstream requires, I'm just
>> wondering - what is your .orig.tar.gz? You might not need to repack
>> it if you can concatenate the files with
❦ 17 avril 2015 00:32 +0100, Ian Jackson :
>> Guess I'll have to start over again and figure out how to manually
>> concatenate the separate upstream files into one huge file. I can see
>> how it makes sense, but it also seems like a lot of work for very
>> little gain…
>
> So you propose to man
Andreas Noteng writes ("Re: Minified javascripts in packages"):
> Guess I'll have to start over again and figure out how to manually
> concatenate the separate upstream files into one huge file. I can see
> how it makes sense, but it also seems like a lot of work for ver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Den 15. april 2015 11:45, skrev Riley Baird:
> While I still maintain my previous position that concatenated js
> is DFSG-free, even if it is not what upstream requires, I'm just
> wondering - what is your .orig.tar.gz? You might not need to repack
>
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 00:08:32 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo
>https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-main
>policy section 2.2.1
>"packages in main must not require or recommend a package outside of
>main for compilation or execution (thus, the package must not declare
>a "Pre-Depends", "D
Jeff Epler (2015-04-15):
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 07:06:53AM +1000, Riley Baird wrote:
> > What if that website goes down one day?
>
> Hmm. I thought a Debian package should not require an internet
> connection to be built from source, but in quickly scanning the debian
> policy manual and the
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Jeff Epler wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 07:06:53AM +1000, Riley Baird wrote:
>> What if that website goes down one day?
>
> Hmm. I thought a Debian package should not require an internet
> connection to be built from source, but in quickly scanning the debian
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 07:06:53AM +1000, Riley Baird wrote:
> What if that website goes down one day?
Hmm. I thought a Debian package should not require an internet
connection to be built from source, but in quickly scanning the debian
policy manual and the debian new maintainers guide I didn't
2015-04-15 23:06 GMT+02:00 Riley Baird <
bm-2cvqnduybau5do2dfjtrn7zbaj246s4...@bitmessage.ch>:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 16:55:56 +0100
> Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Vincent Bernat writes ("Re: Minified javascripts in packages"):
>> >13 avril 2015 17:37 +1000, Ben
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 16:55:56 +0100
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Vincent Bernat writes ("Re: Minified javascripts in packages"):
> >13 avril 2015 17:37 +1000, Ben Finney :
> >> Is the implication of “built by web services” that the source isn't
> >> available f
❦ 15 avril 2015 16:55 +0100, Ian Jackson :
>>Usually, this is something like this:
>> http://modernizr.com/download/#-fontface-backgroundsize-borderimage-borderradius-boxshadow-flexbox-hsla-multiplebgs-opacity-rgba-textshadow-cssanimations-csscolumns-generatedcontent-cssgradients-cssreflections
Vincent Bernat writes ("Re: Minified javascripts in packages"):
>13 avril 2015 17:37 +1000, Ben Finney :
>> Is the implication of “built by web services” that the source isn't
>> available for redistribution? Those would be excluded from Debian
>> trivially
❦ 15 avril 2015 13:47 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard :
>> What I have done so far in my package is to include the
>> concatenated but unminified js from the upstream (that would be my
>> upstream's upstream) source tarball in debian/missing-sources.
>> During package build i use ugli
Quoting Vincent Bernat (2015-04-15 13:26:59)
> ❦ 15 avril 2015 11:07 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard :
>
> What I have done so far in my package is to include the
> concatenated but unminified js from the upstream (that would be my
> upstream's upstream) source tarball in debian/missing-sour
❦ 15 avril 2015 11:07 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard :
What I have done so far in my package is to include the concatenated
but unminified js from the upstream (that would be my upstream's
upstream) source tarball in debian/missing-sources. During package
build i use uglifyjs (wh
> What I have done so far in my package is to include the concatenated
> but unminified js from the upstream (that would be my upstream's
> upstream) source tarball in debian/missing-sources. During package
> build i use uglifyjs (which is already in Debian) to place minified
> copies where the
Quoting Vincent Bernat (2015-04-15 10:49:36)
> ❦ 15 avril 2015 10:10 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard :
>
>>> What I have done so far in my package is to include the concatenated
>>> but unminified js from the upstream (that would be my upstream's
>>> upstream) source tarball in debian/missing-sources. D
❦ 15 avril 2015 10:10 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard :
>> What I have done so far in my package is to include the concatenated
>> but unminified js from the upstream (that would be my upstream's
>> upstream) source tarball in debian/missing-sources. During package
>> build i use uglifyjs (which is a
❦ 15 avril 2015 10:05 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard :
>> When the license says that the derivative should be redistributed with
>> the source in the prefered form of modification, every derivative use
>> the same prefered form of modification. When the license says nothing
>> about that, there the
Quoting Andreas Noteng (2015-04-14 21:05:54)
> Den 13. april 2015 14:05, skrev Wookey:
>> +++ Ben Finney [2015-04-13 14:59 +1000]:
>>> Paul Wise writes:
>>>
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Can we agree, in the context of the original post of this thread:
>
Quoting Vincent Bernat (2015-04-14 18:45:37)
> ❦ 14 avril 2015 10:39 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard :
>
>> I presume that we can agree that, if someone started offering a
>> web service compiling C code with output an order of magnitude
>> better in every dimension than gcc can achieve, we
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 18:42:00 +0200
Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 14 avril 2015 18:22 +1000, Riley Baird
> :
>
> > It makes sense that for small changes, the preferred form for
> > modification would be the generated bootstrap.css. A potential problem
> > with this would be that you can generate bo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Den 13. april 2015 14:05, skrev Wookey:
> +++ Ben Finney [2015-04-13 14:59 +1000]:
>> Paul Wise writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
>>>
Can we agree, in the context of the original post of this
thread:
❦ 14 avril 2015 10:39 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard :
> I presume that we can agree that, if someone started offering a web
> service compiling C code with output an order of magnitude better
> in every dimension than gcc can achieve, we still wouldn't use it
> for our binaries (at
❦ 14 avril 2015 18:22 +1000, Riley Baird
:
> It makes sense that for small changes, the preferred form for
> modification would be the generated bootstrap.css. A potential problem
> with this would be that you can generate bootstrap.css from the LESS
> files, but (I assume) you can't generate t
Quoting Vincent Bernat (2015-04-14 08:40:07)
> ❦ 14 avril 2015 11:00 +1000, Ben Finney :
>
I presume that we can agree that, if someone started offering a web
service compiling C code with output an order of magnitude better
in every dimension than gcc can achieve, we still would
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:40:07 +0200
Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 14 avril 2015 11:00 +1000, Ben Finney :
>
> >> > I presume that we can agree that, if someone started offering a web
> >> > service compiling C code with output an order of magnitude better in
> >> > every dimension than gcc can achie
❦ 14 avril 2015 11:00 +1000, Ben Finney :
>> > I presume that we can agree that, if someone started offering a web
>> > service compiling C code with output an order of magnitude better in
>> > every dimension than gcc can achieve, we still wouldn't use it for
>> > our binaries (at least not unl
Vincent Bernat writes:
> ❦ 13 avril 2015 10:37 +0100, Philip Hands :
>
> > I presume that we can agree that, if someone started offering a web
> > service compiling C code with output an order of magnitude better in
> > every dimension than gcc can achieve, we still wouldn't use it for
> > our
On Monday, April 13, 2015 11:25:05 PM Vincent Bernat wrote:
> 13 avril 2015 10:37 +0100, Philip Hands :
> > I presume that we can agree that, if someone started offering a web
> > service compiling C code with output an order of magnitude better in
> > every dimension than gcc can achieve, we sti
❦ 13 avril 2015 10:37 +0100, Philip Hands :
> I presume that we can agree that, if someone started offering a web
> service compiling C code with output an order of magnitude better in
> every dimension than gcc can achieve, we still wouldn't use it for our
> binaries (at least not unless it wer
❦ 13 avril 2015 17:37 +1000, Ben Finney :
>> As I have seen instances where the JavaScript was built by web
>> services, I'd say the real world is much too complicated to even agree
>> on that.
>
> Is the implication of “built by web services” that the source isn't
> available for redistribution
+++ Ben Finney [2015-04-13 14:59 +1000]:
> Paul Wise writes:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> >
> > > Can we agree, in the context of the original post of this thread:
> > >
> > > Rebuilding from source *is* a reasonable requirement, attainable with
> > > what we have t
Jérémy Lal writes:
> 2015-04-13 11:37 GMT+02:00 Philip Hands :
>> Paul Wise writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>>>
Right, I wasn't clear enough: I'm saying that despite all the other
non-JavaScript cases brought up later in the thread, the requirement
>>
2015-04-13 11:37 GMT+02:00 Philip Hands :
> Paul Wise writes:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>>
>>> Right, I wasn't clear enough: I'm saying that despite all the other
>>> non-JavaScript cases brought up later in the thread, the requirement
>>> (build from source form, wi
Paul Wise writes:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>
>> Right, I wasn't clear enough: I'm saying that despite all the other
>> non-JavaScript cases brought up later in the thread, the requirement
>> (build from source form, with only build dependencies also in Debian)
>> appl
Paul Wise writes:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > Right, I wasn't clear enough: I'm saying that despite all the other
> > non-JavaScript cases brought up later in the thread, the requirement
> > (build from source form, with only build dependencies also in Debian)
> >
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Right, I wasn't clear enough: I'm saying that despite all the other
> non-JavaScript cases brought up later in the thread, the requirement
> (build from source form, with only build dependencies also in Debian)
> applies just fine to JavaScript
Paul Wise writes:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > Can we agree, in the context of the original post of this thread:
> >
> > Rebuilding from source *is* a reasonable requirement, attainable with
> > what we have today in Debian, for JavaScript works.
>
> The first mail
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Can we agree, in the context of the original post of this thread:
>
> Rebuilding from source *is* a reasonable requirement, attainable with
> what we have today in Debian, for JavaScript works.
The first mail mentioned that grunt is not yet in
Paul Wise writes:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>
> > I prefer from a lintian maintainer point of view to rebuild
> > everything from source. At least it is easier to detect.
>
> That is indeed preferable since we can then prove we are distributing
> the source but
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> I prefer from a lintian maintainer point of view to rebuild everything
> from source. At least it is easier to detect.
That is indeed preferable since we can then prove we are distributing
the source but it is unlikely we can get there
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 5:14 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>
>> What is mandatory is being able to rebuild everything from source with
>> tools available in Debian (main)
>
> Unfortunately we don't have any consistent way to manually or
> automaticall
Hi,
Quoting Paul Wise (2015-04-12 05:14:22)
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > What is mandatory is being able to rebuild everything from source with
> > tools available in Debian (main)
>
> Unfortunately we don't have any consistent way to manually or
> automatically ver
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> What is mandatory is being able to rebuild everything from source with
> tools available in Debian (main)
Unfortunately we don't have any consistent way to manually or
automatically verify that we can do this.
I expect we would need Build-D
On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 17:44:06 +0200
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> On Apr 10, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
> > To put it simply: no, you should build everything from source, and not
> > using pre-compiled code (yes, minified scripts can be (and actually are)
> > considered as pre-compiled code..
On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Andreas Noteng wrote:
> I have a question regarding the use of minified javascripts in pacakges.
> Of course these need to be accompanied by the proper source code, but
> is it acceptable to simply use already minified js that often
> accompany the source packages,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
I have a question regarding the use of minified javascripts in pacakges.
Of course these need to be accompanied by the proper source code, but
is it acceptable to simply use already minified js that often
accompany the source packages, as long as the
49 matches
Mail list logo
