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

Re: Non-source Javascript files in upstream source

I'm not writing this email with my ftpteam hat on.

On whenever (I can't be bothered to actually quote, sorry :) ) Russ wrote:
> That doesn't matter for a GR.  A GR can do that with a simple
> majority.

I know, but I just want to make it absolutely clear, since I believe
the statement made covers this, and I think it presents a GR in a
different light -- just politically, even if it doesn't change the votes

On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 09:20:02PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> Is there any disagreement about this?  As far as I've understood so far, there
> are only two points that keep being discussed:
> 1. Do we need to check that generated files which we don't use are actually
>    generated from the provided source?  Main example here is a configure file
>    which gets overwritten during build.

Yes. Please see the email. You need to make sure you have source for
everything. If you're not shipping the raw source (e.g. most Python), be
sure you're making the binary in your rules file, and using that binary
in the deb.

> 2. What is source for a non-programmatic work such as a rendered bitmap of a
>    3-D model, do we require source for non-programmatic works, and if not, what
>    defines a programmatic work?

Preferred form of modification. Yes, there exist edge-cases (an image
made from a photo taken of someone which had two pixels flipped after
putting it through scanner after skydiving while drawing it), but I
think good judgement here is fine.

If the png was made from the svg, include the svg. If a binary was made
from c, include the c. If a min.js was made from .js, include the js. If
a config file was made by a jinja template, include the template.

If you were to 'update' the image, how would you do it? What things
would you need? Include that. Think about what you'd need when you fork
the project.

Hopefully most maintainers can identify the preferred form of
modification on their own. If anyone has trouble, ask for help.

Debian Legal is a good place, as is the ftpteam, debian-devel or
wherever you feel most comfortable soliciting the help of others.

> Neither of these is clarified by their recent statement.

I believe they are. We require source. This applies to source packages.
If you don't have source, don't include the thing. If you have the
source, rebuild it at build time.

> > However, to put this issue to rest, the GR probably needs to amend the
> > DFSG to make it unambiguous, so a 3:1 supermajority would be a good idea
> > anyway.
> That would be a good idea, but given the constant discussions and the vote in
> 2006[1], it seems doubtful whether we can get a simple majority on any point of
> view in this matter.  So it might be better to at least include an option which
> makes the statement without modifying the DFSG.

 .''`.  Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>  |   Proud Debian Developer
: :'  : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352  D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
`. `'`  http://people.debian.org/~paultag
 `-     http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: