Re: Non-source Javascript files in upstream source
- To: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
- Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Non-source Javascript files in upstream source
- From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
- Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 18:40:26 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 21347.55434.940648.630213@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
- In-reply-to: <87a9b7udy3.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
- References: <1397806186.50090.YahooMailNeo@web171803.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <20140425100255.41407b52@sylvester.codehelp> <857g6dmuje.fsf_-_@benfinney.id.au> <3092718.drFUSsLZt9@riemann> <85mwf8lh0y.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <20140426142636.GA9534@lugh.itsari.org> <85bnvnkv53.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <87a9b7udy3.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Non-source Javascript files in upstream source"):
> I continue to hold to my position that distributing sourceless files in
> source packages, provided they are under a free license and not used as
> part of the process of building binary package, is a nuisance rather than
> a meaningful DFSG violation and not worth spending project time and
> resources on. That said, I do understand why people want simple rules
> with no exceptions, even if those rules lead to moderately nonsensical
> corner cases.
>
> I very much doubt that further discussion of this is going to change
> anyone's mind, and I suspect we will simply continue to disagree on the
> requirements until such a time as someone proposes a GR to clarify this
> (if that ever happens). I don't care enough about the issue to do that
> myself.
I'm starting to get tempted. If we have a GR on it, regardless of the
outcome, we can stop these arguments a bit sooner.
Ian.
Reply to: