Re: Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

For the record, I wish the message I am now responding to, and other subsequent responses and discussion, were being sent to the bug mail address *in addition to* all the other addresses they're being sent to. I am choosing to send my response here to the bug mail address, at least in part so there is a record there that not all the discussion related to this bug is available at the bug itself, but instead is only found in the debian-ctte list archives.

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 10:30:01AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:

> Here are some factors to consider:

[...]

In other words, the best way forward for getting any decision would be
an RC bug against perl claiming that the Configure script is not DFSG-free.

For the record, having read Mr. Hartman's draft analysis at https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=830978#217 , and some other things related to the perl Configure script source code availability issue, I admit that I would be ... "amused", for a suitable definition of the word amused, if this issue were brought up. (*cough*).

If anyone thinks that this hardball approach would not be necessary,
please describe to Pirate Praveen a better way for getting an explicit
decision in time for stretch.

Get a variance from RC-buggyness for browserified _javascript_ for Stretch, and package grunt and/or alternative for Stretch+1. That's what he's asked for, anyway.

Admittedly, if grunt et al fails to be successfully packaged for Stretch+1, and/or if packaging grunt et al proves to be insufficient for the browserified _javascript_ source code availability issue, then the RC-bug issue reappears for Stretch+1, with an even more tangled thicket around it But, that's the risk one takes.

Hope this is of some use, interest. Thanks for your time. Be well.

Joseph