Le lundi, 30 mars 2020, 10.14:13 h CEST Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2020, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > > How should package maintainers deal with QR codes ethically?
> >
> > Asking package maintainers to rebuild functionally-equivalent QR-codes
> > during the build-process seems entirely reasonable to me.
>
> To me it looks like wasting my time. There are many pictures that are
> not the preferred form of modification but we accept them as is when
> there's no proof/evidence that some other source exist.
>
> And here there's no other source really, the source is the string
> associated to the QR code. QR code and the string are two different
> representation of the same underlying data.
Yet one is a string, and the other one an image. If you edit the string before
turning it into a QR code, you get a valid QR code (maybe encoding a broken,
or misleading URL, but still valid QR code). If you edit the QR code directly,
you _can_ get a valid QR code, but chances are that you are not getting what
you want. We have a direct "string representation" → "binary artifact", quite
like in compilation.
That said. We don't _have_ to ship these in source or binary packages, and
therefore getaway without re-building these. But if we are to ship them,
building them at build-time from their source strings is a really modest price
to pay; for the sake of "actually building binary artifacts from source".
--
OdyXAttachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.