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". -- OdyX
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.