Re: Non-source Javascript files in upstream source

[Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org>]

Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> writes:
> 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.

Ah, wait. So is the requirement that we ship the source to all files in
the source package, or is the requirement to ship the source to all
files in the source package that are used to generate the binary
package?

I always thought it was the latter, and your mail seems to say that as
well, but the original email indicates the former.

I'm still surprised that I had to start stripping out javascript files
in the Sphinx-generated documentation from upstream tarballs, despite
the documentation being completely removed and regenerated during the
build.


Best,
-Nikolaus
-- 
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

             »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«