On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 02:15:40PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: > A lot of upstreams use this tool or jshint during their build, > particularly due to systems like grunt encouraging it in their docs Yep. I like jshint. In fact, I co-work with the guy that wrote grunt. Which is why I had this ITP open. > To save time for other maintainers, why not package a repackaged > upstream tarball? > > Just strip out everything with the "no evil" clause The thing is, jshint *it's self* is under that license. If you strip it out, there's no code :) > None of the logic is mandatory for a build process anyway, this is just > a QA tool D'oh :) Perhaps check the terms of the jshint library. > > If there are no warnings left at all, then I suppose the tool could just > spit out a message like the following: > > Warning: your build script depends on a non-free tool. Please stop > calling jslint or set JSLINT_EVIL_IGNORE=1 to make this message go away > > If Mr Crockford really wants people to consider the advice that his tool > gives about JavaScript coding practices, then he will release the code > under a free software license and then all the other stuff will work the > way he wants it to. He gives talks about how stupid everyone is for wanting a tool that does evil. He's not going to change his mind. There's a jshint-ng that's under MIT/Expat under development. I've not checked on it in a while, but perhaps it's nice now? This might also be good for non-free, I just didn't have the time to play with non-free code (or maintain it) Thanks for looking into this tool, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature