Hi
Le sam. 9 oct. 2021 à 18:52, Jonas Smedegaard <
jonas@jones.dk> a écrit :
Quoting Julien Puydt (2021-10-09 18:48:07)
> Hi
>
> Le sam. 9 oct. 2021 à 17:40, Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> a écrit :
>
> > 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."
> >
>
> Minified code isn't code in a form meant/supposed to be modified by
> hand, so it's not source code.
Right. But stating that is not helping much.
It is not source code.
It is not binary code.
It was helping: it's definitely binary code, since it's not source code!
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 discussion to convince them to release the true sources.
The situation is the same here: minified code isn't source. Trying to claim it's not really binary because it's _javascript_ and not some bytecode (for a virtual or actual hardware) is disingenuous.
If that's not what developer work with, that's not source, end of the discussion.
Cheers,
J. Puydt