Re: Bug#995722: Not running tests because tests miss source code is not useful
Le 10/10/2021 à 15:36, Kristian Nielsen a écrit :
> Julien Puydt <julien.puydt@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> There was the case years ago of the smarteiffel compiler. It was supposed
>> to be open source, but upstream only released C code. And that was bad,
>> because it wasn't what *they* worked with: they had eiffel sources, and the
>> C code was preprocessed and didn't allow/permit bootstrapping. It took some
>
> This is a good example, because it shows how "source code" is defined by
> what upstream development uses, not merely by users being able to compile
> the released code.
>
> But the situation here seems to be the opposite: The minified javascript
> *is* what *they* (upstream developers) work with. They don't have a secret
> unpublished build system to generate the minification from unpublished
> sources. Presumably, if they need to update it, they would replace it with a
> new minified file obtained from a newer release of that project. Or as has
> been mentioned, the test might be testing a problem against that very
> specific version of the javascript minification, in which case it will never
> be changed at all - as that would instead be the addition of a separate
> testcase.
>
> Thus, the minified file *is* the preferred (by the upstream developers) form
> of the work for making modifications to it. Which is how source code is
> defined in the GPL, for example. It seems wrong to me to define "source
> code" as something that the upstream development does not use and which
> doesn't actually exist anywhere.
>
> As an extreme example, some people prefer Rust to C, but that does not mean
> that a C program must be re-written in Rust to satisfy the "preferred form
> of work" condition for source code.
>
> This still leaves the Vendoring problem. Even if we consider the minified
> javascript "source" in the context of the upstream development, it obviously
> isn't source in the context of the original javascript library project. If
> the javascript library is GPL, for example, it will require the availability
> of the correct version of the source code along with the minification.
>
> I think there is a subtle but important distinction here:
>
> 1. A program not being free because it is missing what upstream developers
> consider "source" (as in the smarteiffel example).
>
> 2. A program being unsuitable for debian because it is developed in a way
> that effectively requires Vendoring of sources of dependencies.
>
> - Kristian.
For now:
$ cat tags/s/source-contains-prebuilt-javascript-object.tag
Tag: source-contains-prebuilt-javascript-object
Severity: pedantic
Check: cruft
Explanation: The source tarball contains a prebuilt (minified)
JavaScript object.
They are usually left by mistake when generating the tarball by not
cleaning the source directory first. You may want to report this as
an upstream bug, in case there is no sign that this was intended.
Following this discussion, it should be a "Severity: error", shouldn't it?
Reply to: