Bug#751550: RFS: aclock.app/0.4.0-1 [ITA]

[Yavor Doganov <yavor@gnu.org>]

Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> > Furthermore, it is possible that the current upstream has no clue at
> > all how to generate the images
> 
> This sounds like a problem to me.

Why?  It is quite possible that they would never have to be modified
for the entire lifetime of the package.  As long as the possibility to
do so exists and the DFSG requirements are met, I don't see a problem.

> > This is usually done only for users' convenience 
> 
> I have the luxury of being a Debian user so I do tend to not worry
> about that sort of thing any more.

I was only explaining why it is relevant for many upstream developers.
If you are upstream you should not assume that all your users have
this luxury.  Even for Debian users it can be tedious -- there are
slow architectures and there are fast architectures that happen to
have slow machines which are still in wide use.

> > Only one package build-depends on xcftools which again suggests
> > that currently it is not a common practice in Debian to regenerate
> > images from source.
> 
> Agreed that it is not common practice, sadly. I think we have enough
> in policy/DFSG to encourage this, we just need people to understand it
> and actually care about it, which is the hard part.

I could be mistaken, but Policy/DFSG does not mention anything of that
kind, not even for .mo/.info/.pdf/autotools files, let alone images.
The presence of the source is required, which is pretty much
understandable and how it should be.  The rest is just one possible
interpretation, whether correct or not.