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

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Pa irate Praveen <praveen@debian.org> wrote:

On 2016, ഒക്‌ടോബർ 4 7:49:28 PM IST, Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> wrote:

>You're asking questions that don't make sense from a p.process
>standpoint, doing things that have a very low probability of making
>anyone happy,

A quick update, I have asked ftp masters to make a ruling on the issue. #839801.

I saw that. I look forward to any response they (or others) care to make concerning that bug.

FWIW, I for one was under the impression (in part based on what you originally wrote when you opened this bug, and looking at the bugs you referenced in that message) that there had already been a decision by them to declare browserified _javascript_ as failing to be DFSG-free on the grounds of failing source code availability (because grunt is not currently available in the Debian main archive). If this was not the case, then I'll agree with others it's important you get an explicit ruling from them one way or another, so that if the ruling goes against you you can go to the TC and say "This is what was decided, and this is why I disagree", and you actually *have* something to point to in terms of what was decided!

Based on what Mr. Hartman has written, I would encourage you to explain for everyone involved just exactly what you mean by "browserified _javascript_", what sort of processes and transformations are included by that term and what are not. Try to be as specific and precise as possible, not just handwavy. I've seen some stuff that makes it sound like it's merely concatenation of files, but then I've seen other stuff that makes it sound like it's *not* just that. So I'm confused. Remember, the people on the TC are generally technically adept, but they're *not* specialists in _javascript_ as you apparently are! You need to teach them some stuff, so they can make an educated and informed decision.

I would also suggest you explain exactly how the issue raised in bugs https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=830986 and https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=830987 (the bugs related to the generated lexer/parser code issue) relate to the concept of browserified _javascript_ in general? Is part of what's described in these bugs routinely considered to be part of what it means to browserify _javascript_, so that if browserified _javascript_ is (temporarily) declared to not be RC-buggy for Stretch, that means this stuff is not RC-buggy for Stretch? Or, is what's described by these bugs entirely separate and apart from the process of browserification, such that even if browserification is not RC-buggy for the moment, software with these bugs is still RC-buggy and needs to have the bug resolved or else have the software go to the non-free archive?

I feel these responses make TC more like a bureaucracy, where focus is given on process and having people to go around asking many people.

From what I understand of Mr. Hartman, he is particularly interested in process.

But, for your purposes, that is not a *bad* thing! He's not necessarily interested in simply denying your request (tho, he *is* interested in making sure your request is seen by him only after the people who should see and decide on your request first have had a chance to do so).

That doesn't mean he'll necessarily agree with your position. But, I think it's important to him that you get a fair hearing and be treated as fairly as possible.

It's important however for *you*, if you are to get what you want (which as far as I can tell is a temporary variance for the duration of Stretch for browserified _javascript_ files from being considered RC-buggy while you work to package grunt for Stretch+1), to explain *why* this variance should be granted. And what you're going to do to permanently resolved this issue for Stretch+1, so it doesn't come up again as a problem. You have to convince the TC to take your side; it's not enough for you to say "Well, you should do what I want because ... Just because."

I'm sorry if you feel like this is a bureaucracy. For what it's worth, I think people are just trying to make sure they're doing what's right or what's best, not just what's convenient or expedient at the moment.

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

Joseph