Bug#830978: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2
Traditionally, ftpteam has had to take this role, since it is the body
that decides if an upload is fit for main.
I am one of those folks that treat minified JS as binary, since things
like removing comments and renaming variables to `a`, `b` `c` is done.
Dead code can also be trimmed (closure compiler). In my mind it's not
hugely different than compiling nasm to an ELF. It may relate closely,
but it's not how you'd modify it.
Upstreams don't modify it in minified form. And just because you can
ghex an ELF to fix an asm bug, that doesn't make it the correct way
for us to ship code.
I haven't talked in-depth with the rest of the ftpteam, but I assume
they agree. CC'ing in case there's an objection.
Not completely sure why this was filed with TC
Paul
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> wrote:
> So, my first question is whether this is a matter that it's reasonable
> for the TC to rule on.
>
>
> I definitely think we're not an appropriate body to rule on a question
> like whether a particular license is DFSG free.
>
> However, here we're asked to give advice on whether something is source
> code. Is the question of what is the source code for a given package
> technical, and thus within our remit?
>
> I'd be very interested in opinions on this.
>
--
:wq
Reply to: