Dear Ben,
Am Donnerstag, den 08.05.2014, 12:21 +1000 schrieb Ben Finney:
> > Well, I say "Let's do something else, I'll have another look later".
>
> I am using https://wiki.debian.org/BenFinney/software/repack> for
> another package, to remove non-source JavaScript files from the Debian
> source
Vincent Bernat writes:
> ❦ 8 mai 2014 12:21 +1000, Ben Finney :
>
> > I am using https://wiki.debian.org/BenFinney/software/repack>
> > for another package, to remove non-source JavaScript files from the
> > Debian source package.
> >
> > I have now re-worked it for the ‘roundcube’ package and
❦ 8 mai 2014 12:21 +1000, Ben Finney :
>> When I get some time to work on my packages and I see this:
>>
>> http://lintian.debian.org/maintainer/pkg-roundcube-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org.html#roundcube
>
> Yes, it's disheartening to see such files in a source distribution from
> upstr
Vincent Bernat writes:
> When I get some time to work on my packages and I see this:
>
> http://lintian.debian.org/maintainer/pkg-roundcube-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org.html#roundcube
Yes, it's disheartening to see such files in a source distribution from
upstream. Fortunately the solut
❦ 8 mai 2014 01:11 +0200, Jérémy Lal :
>> This is to be compared with the time spent by the maintainer to deal
>> with this problem by adding files or removing files from the source
>> package without affecting the resulting binary package. This may keep
>> some contributors away from Debian.
>
Le jeudi 08 mai 2014 à 00:57 +0200, Vincent Bernat a écrit :
> ❦ 7 mai 2014 17:41 CEST, The Wanderer :
>
> > Specifically, it violates my (pre-this-thread) expectation of what it is
> > that I get from 'apt-get source'. Prior to reading this thread, it would
> > never have occurred to me to thi
❦ 7 mai 2014 17:41 CEST, The Wanderer :
> Specifically, it violates my (pre-this-thread) expectation of what it is
> that I get from 'apt-get source'. Prior to reading this thread, it would
> never have occurred to me to think that something obtained that way
> might not be actually part of the
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 05:18:36PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> the problem is for the package maintainer to assert that *is* the
> corresponding source for a particular work.
>
> We should not, IMO, accept such an assertion without an independently
> verifiable guarantee that can be automated for e
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/07/2014 11:06 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I submit that in the case of minified javascript libraries that are
> *already available* in Debian, and that are symlinked (in the way as
> described before) but ship in a source tarball as convenien
Op woensdag 7 mei 2014 23:18:00 schreef Ben Finney:
> Wouter Verhelst writes:
> > The point is, I'm having a hard time buying the argument that if the
> > minified javascript was unmodified, and if the non-minified javascript
> > library is in the archive (or a version of said javascript library
>
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> The point is, I'm having a hard time buying the argument that if the
> minified javascript was unmodified, and if the non-minified javascript
> library is in the archive (or a version of said javascript library
> which will function in exactly the same way), that the min
Op woensdag 7 mei 2014 20:14:50 schreef Ben Finney:
> Wouter Verhelst writes:
> > Op vrijdag 2 mei 2014 15:58:37 schreef Paul Tagliamonte:
> > > If you were to 'update' the image, how would you do it? What things
> > > would you need? Include that. Think about what you'd need when
you
> > > fork
Neil Williams writes:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > Wouter Verhelst writes:
> > > If a dependency and a symlink exists, however, it's clear that the
> > > maintainer meant to say "source is over there".
>
> As I've tried to show above, "over there" is not helpful. "over there"
> can go away, can be u
On Wed, 07 May 2014 20:14:50 +1000
Ben Finney wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes:
>
> > Op vrijdag 2 mei 2014 15:58:37 schreef Paul Tagliamonte:
> > > If you were to 'update' the image, how would you do it? What
> > > things would you need? Include that. Think about what you'd need
> > > when you
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> Op vrijdag 2 mei 2014 15:58:37 schreef Paul Tagliamonte:
> > If you were to 'update' the image, how would you do it? What things
> > would you need? Include that. Think about what you'd need when you
> > fork the project.
>
> Does that mean I should include "wget"?
I'm
Op vrijdag 2 mei 2014 15:58:37 schreef Paul Tagliamonte:
> If you were to 'update' the image, how would you do it? What things
> would you need? Include that. Think about what you'd need when you fork
> the project.
Does that mean I should include "wget"?
Most minified externally-produced javascr
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> [W]hile I agree that this is a problem for things like precompiled
> Windows binaries, I'm not so sure when it regards convenience copies
> of minified javascript libraries. After all, there are many other
> packages whose upstream source ships with convenience copies of
Op zaterdag 26 april 2014 16:51:57 schreef Ben Finney:
> "Steve M. Robbins" writes:
> > On April 25, 2014 11:02:29 PM Ben Finney wrote:
> > > We promise the source for everything any recipient downloads as
part
> > > of Debian. If non-source files are distributed in Debian source
> > > packages,
Quoting Holger Levsen (2014-05-03 15:26:37)
> On Samstag, 3. Mai 2014, Ben Finney wrote:
>>> care to explain the difference?
>> We're not interested in what form a *modification* takes (if it even
>> makes sense to talk about a “form of modification”, which doesn't
>> seem coherent in the context
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 03:58:37PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 09:20:02PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > Is there any disagreement about this? As far as I've understood so far,
> > there
> > are only two points that keep being discussed:
> >
> > 1. Do we need to check
Hi Ben,
On Samstag, 3. Mai 2014, Ben Finney wrote:
> > care to explain the difference?
> We're not interested in what form a *modification* takes (if it even
> makes sense to talk about a “form of modification”, which doesn't seem
> coherent in the context). We're interested in what form of the *w
Ben Finney dixit:
>That is, to answer the question “what is the source form of the work”,
>we need a definition that answers in terms of “such-and-so form of the
>work”.
Well, the one you’d want to have when you were to modify (think, fork)
the original work in question.
In the autoconf case: ev
Nikolaus Rath dixit:
>Ah, wait. So is the requirement that we ship the source to all files in
>the source package, or is the requirement to ship the source to all
>files in the source package that are used to generate the binary
>package?
The former, plus…
>Paul Tagliamonte writes:
>> Yes. Ple
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/03/2014 07:45 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Holger Levsen writes:
>
>> Hi Ben,
>>> My understanding of the FTP team's operating policy for what
>>> constitutes source for a work is: the preferred form of the work
>>> for making modifications to i
Holger Levsen writes:
> Hi Ben,
>
> On Samstag, 3. Mai 2014, Ben Finney wrote:
> > As far as I understand it, that phrase [“preferred form of
> > modification”] doesn't make sense.
> >
> > My understanding of the FTP team's operating policy for what
> > constitutes source for a work is: the pref
Hi Ben,
On Samstag, 3. Mai 2014, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Preferred form of modification.
>
> As far as I understand it, that phrase doesn't make sense.
>
> My understanding of the FTP team's operating policy for what constitutes
> source for a work is: the preferred form of the work for making
> m
Paul Tagliamonte writes:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 09:20:02PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > 2. What is source for a non-programmatic work such as a rendered
> > bitmap of a 3-D model, do we require source for non-programmatic
> > works, and if not, what defines a programmatic work?
>
> Preferred f
Paul Tagliamonte writes:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 09:20:02PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
>> Is there any disagreement about this? As far as I've understood so far,
>> there
>> are only two points that keep being discussed:
>>
>> 1. Do we need to check that generated files which we don't use are a
Le Fri, May 02, 2014 at 09:20:02PM +0200, Bas Wijnen a écrit :
>
> 1. Do we need to check that generated files which we don't use are actually
>generated from the provided source? Main example here is a configure file
>which gets overwritten during build.
>
> 2. What is source for a non-
On May 2, 2014 5:43:30 PM EDT, Michael Banck wrote:
>On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 03:58:37PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
>> If the png was made from the svg, include the svg.
>
>Well, it is unclear who you are adressing here. If upstream made a
>.png
>from (prsumably) an .svg, but did not include
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 09:20:02PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
>
> 1. Do we need to check that generated files which we don't use are actually
>generated from the provided source? Main example here is a configure file
>which gets overwritten during build.
For the record, the reason why I sh
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 03:58:37PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> If the png was made from the svg, include the svg.
Well, it is unclear who you are adressing here. If upstream made a .png
from (prsumably) an .svg, but did not include the .svg in the tarball,
how can the Debian maintainer incl
I'm not writing this email with my ftpteam hat on.
On whenever (I can't be bothered to actually quote, sorry :) ) Russ wrote:
> That doesn't matter for a GR. A GR can do that with a simple
> majority.
I know, but I just want to make it absolutely clear, since I believe
the statement made cover
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:18:33AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Paul Tagliamonte writes:
> > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:40:26PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> >> I'm starting to get tempted. If we have a GR on it, regardless of the
> >> outcome, we can stop these arguments a bit sooner.
>
> > Pl
Paul Tagliamonte writes:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:40:26PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> I'm starting to get tempted. If we have a GR on it, regardless of the
>> outcome, we can stop these arguments a bit sooner.
> Please do note that this would be a GR to override a DPL delegated
> team's de
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:40:26PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I'm starting to get tempted. If we have a GR on it, regardless of the
> outcome, we can stop these arguments a bit sooner.
Please do note that this would be a GR to override a DPL delegated
team's decision[1], just to be absolutely cl
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Non-source Javascript files in upstream source"):
> I continue to hold to my position that distributing sourceless files in
> source packages, provided they are under a free license and not used as
> part of the process of building binary package, i
On Sunday 27 April 2014 09:37 PM, Nicolas wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm a bit disapointed. I don't know what to do. I try to fix following
> bug : https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=744317
> Two files are pointed to have no upstream source. Theses files are
> html template files used by a
On 27/04/14, 06:18pm, Nicolas wrote:
> >
> > Jo Nicolas,
> >
> > You could generate the minified javascript from normal javascript files.
> >
> >
> I know that but non minified files don't work. It gives errors "Uncaught
> SyntaxError: Unexpected token ILLEGAL"
Then the issue is with the source fi
>
> Jo Nicolas,
>
> You could generate the minified javascript from normal javascript files.
>
>
I know that but non minified files don't work. It gives errors "Uncaught
SyntaxError: Unexpected token ILLEGAL"
Hi all,
I'm a bit disapointed. I don't know what to do. I try to fix following bug
: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=744317
Two files are pointed to have no upstream source. Theses files are html
template files used by a javascript engine. If I understood, the problem is
that the
Ben Finney writes:
> Okay. Is it accurate to say, then, that you and I agree these files are
> distributed as part of the Debian source package, and thereby part of
> Debian?
Mu. I find this definition of the problem reductionist and overly
simplistic and think there are various shades of grey
Russ Allbery writes:
> Ben Finney writes:
> >> 2014-04-26 07:51 Ben Finney:
>
> >>> If it's in the Debian source package, it is distributed as part of
> >>> Debian.
>
> You should probably not assume [that statement to be uncontroversial
> within the Debian project].
Thanks. I note, though, tha
Ben Finney writes:
>> 2014-04-26 07:51 Ben Finney:
>>> If it's in the Debian source package, it is distributed as part of
>>> Debian.
> (I'm assuming, from the lack of response to this point, that this is
> uncontroversial.)
You should probably not assume that. Rather, you should probably assu
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo writes:
> 2014-04-26 07:51 Ben Finney:
> > If it's in the Debian source package, it is distributed as part of
> > Debian.
(I'm assuming, from the lack of response to this point, that this is
uncontroversial.)
> What's your position on 'configure' scripts for which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
El 26/04/14, 06:20pm, Peter Samuelson escribió:
>
> [Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo]
> > If you agree that "source-is-missing" also applies in those cases, do
> > you also think that we should immediately declare all source packages
> > in Debian conta
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
El 26/04/14, 06:20pm, Peter Samuelson escribió:
>
> [Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo]
> > If you agree that "source-is-missing" also applies in those cases, do
> > you also think that we should immediately declare all source packages
> > in Debian conta
[Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo]
> If you agree that "source-is-missing" also applies in those cases, do
> you also think that we should immediately declare all source packages
> in Debian containing a 'configure' script as somehow non free (unless
> we can check unambigously that they were generat
2014-04-26 07:51 Ben Finney:
"Steve M. Robbins" writes:
On April 25, 2014 11:02:29 PM Ben Finney wrote:
> We promise the source for everything any recipient downloads as part
> of Debian. If non-source files are distributed in Debian source
> packages, without a way to confidently guarantee th
"Steve M. Robbins" writes:
> On April 25, 2014 11:02:29 PM Ben Finney wrote:
> > We promise the source for everything any recipient downloads as part
> > of Debian. If non-source files are distributed in Debian source
> > packages, without a way to confidently guarantee the corresponding
> > sour
On April 25, 2014 11:02:29 PM Ben Finney wrote:
> Neil Williams writes:
> > On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 01:16:04 +0100
> >
> > 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
Neil Williams writes:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 01:16:04 +0100
> 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 -- provid
52 matches
Mail list logo
