Hi Praveen, and others, Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2016-07-10 19:41:17) > Quoting Pirate Praveen (2016-07-10 18:40:53) > > This is not a minified file, only browserified. Though ideally we > > should browserify it in debian, grunt is still not packaged. Since its > > still a human readable and modifiable format, I don't think DFSG > > applies here. > > The requirement of source format of redistributed code is not about it > being possible/easy to edit by those receiving it¹, but about it being > in the format preferred by _upstream_ to edit - e.g. for passing patches > upstream. > > If "browserifying" is a process simple to apply and revert, then ship > the code _not_ browserified and browserify during install (yes, I > understand that the tool upstream uses for that process is not yet in > Debian - which either means you need to imitate that process or that it > is _not such simple process). Above from bug#817092 is possibly what Praveen paraphrased in bug#830978 as "Some believe [included files being readable and editable] is not enough and the tool required to browserify should be in debian". For the record, my point was and is *not* that upstream process should be used¹ - I even explicitly mention an alternative in above quote. My point (also spelled out in first paragraph above) is that "source" is not had by files being "readable and editable". - Jonas ¹ at least not for DFSG compliance. Might make sense for other reasons, e.g. (when result is not identical) that upstream process has had more eyeballs and is therefore arguably preferred for security reasons. -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature