Re: [Pkg-dns-devel] Bug#833309: "Browserified" stuff (knot-resolver-module-http: please package embedded epoch.js separately)
On 14458 March 1977, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
>> Dunno. It would be great if the line wasn't challenged just to prove a
>> point
> I don't think tincho nor myself want to challenge a line, we
> would like to know where it is :~)
> If I package a compiler and put y.tab.c in the package, drop
> grammar.y in d/m-s/, would it be OK or not?
If you come up with a good reason for it, yes. But I doubt you would
find one here.
> If I don't even check that bison actually can process the file, would
> it still be OK?
No.
You as the maintainer have to guarantee that the file is buildable with
tools available in main. You can't if you don't ever check this.
> There are some packages, that currently have only generated
> JS files without the original sources (not only SASS and
> CoffeeScript, but also large JS libraries, that are bundled from
> many source files), which seems not in line with DFSG.
> No need to eject them from main, however, because maintainers
> can just add the missing sources in the way they like.
If they don't then there sure is a reason to eject it from main.
--
bye, Joerg
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/How_to_win_an_argument
Reply to: