Re: Bug#879123: glee: source for configure is missing
On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 14:26:16 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> 2. Source code is provided, but we don't rebuild the derived file from
> it [...] This is normally considered to be a bug, whose
> severity depends on the circumstances:
I missed a sub-case here: For files that we don't actually use (for
example if a package contains libjpeg-6b.dll together with complete IJG
libjpeg-6b source code), not rebuilding or removing the binary artefact
is arguably not a bug at all, since we are in compliance with both
the license and DFSG §2, and the quality/trust issues don't affect us
because we aren't going to use it anyway.
However, that one is more debatable, and I could understand a point of
view that says it's still RC because in general we don't/can't know that
the source actually corresponds to the binary.
In practice, I would tend to repack source to exclude such artefacts
even if it isn't mandatory, because that makes it more obvious that we
aren't doing something bad (being obviously correct is better than merely
being correct), it saves some upload/download time and archive space,
and it's usually trival to do. But that's just my personal opinion, and
I don't claim that it reflects any sort of consensus.
smcv
Reply to: