On 2021-10-09 08:53:57 +0200 (+0200), Yadd wrote: [...] > If you really consider minified files as binary, there's a room for > creating a lot of RC bugs The more appropriate question is whether Debian considers minified files to be source code, or a compiled form. To needlessly quote DFSG §2: "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form." I suppose the other related question is whether testsuites are considered a "program" since the issue at hand is whether it's okay to distribute testsuites only in compiled form, omitting their source code. I'm not a DD so won't be voting in any resultant GR, but I personally consider all the tests I write to be part of programs for which I create them, and so dependencies of those tests are build/non-runtime dependencies of the programs themselves. Sometimes my software contains constructed test vectors which are inherently "sourceless" (e.g. crafted IP packets with bogus fields, or binary keys for test certificates), but when these can be generated automatically, the tools and routines for generating them are still to be considered dependencies of my software, and when that's not possible, instructions are provided for their recreation at least. It's an entirely legitimate concern that a user may want to add new tests with similar but not identical fixtures, and I consider it important that they be able to do so with only DFSG-compliant tools. Not all software meets the DFSG, and that goes for testsuites too. DFSG-compliant software with non-DFSG-compliant testsuites should still be fit for main as long as those non-DFSG-compliant testsuites are omitted, and it seems reasonable that those testsuites could also be distributed separately in non-free from different source packages (so long as their licenses permit their distribution at all, which is another fun problem these bits sometimes raise). -- Jeremy Stanley
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature