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

Re: Non-source Javascript files in upstream source

On May 2, 2014 5:43:30 PM EDT, Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org> wrote:
>On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 03:58:37PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
>> If the png was made from the svg, include the svg. 
>Well, it is unclear who you are adressing here.  If upstream made a
>from (prsumably) an .svg, but did not include the .svg in the tarball,
>how can the Debian maintainer include if they don't have access to it?
>I agree that when possible and feasable, the original source should be
>I just also tend to think then when upstream includes a PDF as very
>useful documentation, and it can be decuced from the layout that this
>was done by LaTeX or LibreOffice, but the respective source files are
>missing, our users are best served by including this PDF in this case
>(if there are no overriding licensing issues on top).  
>It is ok to ask upstream if the maintainer wants to take that extra
>step, but I don't think it should be mandated.
>My 0.02 cents, anyway.

I think these are all a different case than JavaScript. JavaScript is code and I don't think there's much debate about the question of if code requires source.  The debate is primarily about if lack of non-minified JavaScript source is a big enough problem to be worth the effort of fixing if it's not used in the binary. 

The works you describe aren't code, so there is an ambiguity between DFSG and the social contract that creates a difference of opinion about if these require source at all.

I believe it's important to keep these two  issues separate in order to better resolve both of them. 

Scott K

Reply to: