[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

Your message dated Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:21:31 -0500
with message-id <tsla89eowuc.fsf@suchdamage.org>
and subject line Closing: Ftpmaster decision
has caused the Debian Bug report #839570,
regarding Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
839570: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=839570
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
package: tech-ctte

Following up on #830978. I would like this to be reopened and request
CTTE make a formal vote.

Because, every major web based software will have to be moved to contrib
because its likely at least one of the javascript dependencies are in
browserified form.

1. Diaspora is already moved to contrib because of libjs-handlebars
2. GitLab will need to be moved to contrib #814871
3. Pagure will have to be in contrib #829046
4. Prometheus will need to be moved to contrib #835661

There will be more if we look at all packages depending on javascript
libraries or embedding them.

It is not realistic to expect Grunt will be packaged for stretch or
reimplement the same functionality for all browserified packages.

This will encourage more people to depend on non-free/contrib and I
don't think debian community wants to move in that direction. If that is
really what the community wants, I want it formally declared

I suggest including browserified js in stretch and make an effort to
package grunt for stretch+1.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 

Hi.
The ftp team was requested to rule on the issue and provided very cogent
analysis of the complex question of what constitutes the source code of
a package.
While the TC has not taken a formal vote, it is my reading of internal
discussions that the TC is supportive of the FTP team's analysis.
We would like to thank the ftp team, the submitter, and those who
contributed for the detailed exploration of this issue.

At this time, there doesn't appear to be anything for the TC to do, so
we are closing the bug.

--- End Message ---
Reply to: