Re: jquery debate with upstream
On 03/12/2014 05:16 AM, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2014-03-11, Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 06:09:40PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> I don't think this is a significant breach of the DFSG.
>>
>> Ah, but you do acknowledge this *is* a breach, even if a small one.
>>
>>
>> So this comes down to where the line is, like I said.
>
>
> "As a Debian Developer, I will uphold the DFSG except where it is
> inconvenient" ?
>
> I actually think the DFSG is a great document and we shouldn't just
> stray from it because it is inconvenient.
>
> If I had to disregard the DFSG in some cases, I'd rather see rfc files
> in our files than sourceless javascripts.
>
> /Sune
Oh, let's talk about this! :)
I had once a package rejected because the doc contained a logo in PNG
format, which had in its header clues that it has been generated. I
later on just removed the logo in a +dfsg package... Added benefits to
this? In my opinion, the package was just *less* good, it took some of
my time, and users don't have an (ugly and generated) logo in the doc,
and have instead a broken link in the HTML (cause I had better things to
do than to fix this as well...).
I think THAT went too far (but I do agree we should get rid of minified
javascript files).
As Paul wrote it, it's all about where we draw the line.
Thomas
Reply to: