Re: Not running tests because tests miss source code is not useful
Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> writes:
> Right: It is ok to use upstream-provided pre-minified code, as long as
> that code is DFSG-free, which requires the source of that code must
> exist in Debian.
> ...and because that is often complicated to ensure (not because it
> violates DFSG in itself), it is easier to avoid upstream-provided
> pre-minified code.
Test suites are often a licensing mess. Another common case that's not in
play here but that I've seen before is that long-standing projects that
have been used commercially often have test snippets with unclear
licensing that check for regressions that were previously seen in
proprietary environments.
Debian historically has erred on the side of maintaining clear source
availability and licensing status for everything in Debian (which includes
everything in any source package) at the cost of not availing ourselves of
test suites that would otherwise be useful. That's unfortunately probably
the easy path here as well, until someone has time to find non-minified
versions of the test dependencies and either package them or include them
in the package. It's frustrating to remove the tests, but the DFSG source
requirements as currently applied do not distinguish between code shipped
only in source packages and code also shipped in binary packages.
I can see an argument that we should not worry about minified files in
main that are (a) only in the source package and not in any binary
package, and (b) only used to run tests, not to build the binary packages.
(I'm not saying I agree or disagree, just that I can see the argument.)
But given the apparent consensus on this in past discussions, I suspect
that changing that rule would be GR material rather than debian-devel
thread material. Making that sort of change without a GR to be sure the
project is behind it feels like the kind of thing that's likely to spawn
endless arguments that will sap everyone's will to live.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: