FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-17-2012, 10:03 AM
Simon Josefsson
 
Default Minified javascript files

Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> writes:

> On 08/17/2012 09:40 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What I didn't know until recently is that the minified version in the
>>> source package should be removed (or the appropriate full version should
>>> be appended).
>>>
>> Do we also require that for say, precompiled DLLs of GTK+ or SDL for
>> Windows platforms?
>>
> I had the OpenSSL dll for windows embedded in one of my source packages,
> because there was some windows software together with it. I had to remove
> it completely, as I was asked to have the source code for it, and I found
> ridiculous to embed the sources of OpenSSL too.
>
> So yes, we have the problem for precompiled windows DLLs in a source
> package.

Interesting, that issue seems rather common. Maybe a lintian check
could alarm packagers of this?

See below for a list of *.dll files in packages starting with 'a' only.
Overall, I found *.dll files in around 131 packages (of course not all
of those represent a problem).

/Simon

./abe_1.1.orig.tar.gz:abe-1.1/SDL.dll
./abe_1.1.orig.tar.gz:abe-1.1/SDL_mixer.dll
./activemq_5.6.0+dfsg.orig.tar.gz:activemq-5.6.0+dfsg/assembly/src/release/bin/win64/wrapper.dll
./alpine_2.02.orig.tar.gz:re-alpine-2.02/alpine/ldap32.dll
./alpine_2.02.orig.tar.gz:re-alpine-2.02/ldap/binaries/debug/ldap32.dll
./alpine_2.02.orig.tar.gz:re-alpine-2.02/ldap/binaries/debug/libldap.dll
./alpine_2.02.orig.tar.gz:re-alpine-2.02/ldap/binaries/release/ldap32.dll
./alpine_2.02.orig.tar.gz:re-alpine-2.02/ldap/binaries/release/libldap.dll
./altos_1.0.3.tar.gz:altos-1.0.3/altosui/Instdrv/NSIS/Plugins/InstDrv.dll
./antlr_2.7.7+dfsg.orig.tar.gz:antlr-2.7.7/examples/csharp/csharp_v1/Tools/runtime.dll
./antlr_2.7.7.orig.tar.gz:antlr-2.7.7/examples/csharp/csharp_v1/Tools/runtime.dll
./argyll_1.1.1.orig.tar.gz:argyll-1.1.1/libusbw/ddk_make/sources_dll
./argyll_1.1.1.orig.tar.gz:argyll-1.1.1/libusbw/libusb0.dll
./argyll_1.1.1.orig.tar.gz:argyll-1.1.1/libusbw/libusb0_x64.dll
./armadillo_0.9.52.orig.tar.gz:armadillo-0.9.52/examples/lib_win32/blas_win32_MT.dll
./armadillo_0.9.52.orig.tar.gz:armadillo-0.9.52/examples/lib_win32/lapack_win32_MT.dll
./atanks_5.5.orig.tar.gz:atanks-5.5/alleg42.dll
./atanks_5.5.orig.tar.gz:atanks-5.5/src/alleg42.dll


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87k3wx7s44.fsf@latte.josefsson.org">http://lists.debian.org/87k3wx7s44.fsf@latte.josefsson.org
 
Old 08-17-2012, 10:43 AM
Andrey Rahmatullin
 
Default Minified javascript files

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:03:23PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > So yes, we have the problem for precompiled windows DLLs in a source
> > package.
>
> Interesting, that issue seems rather common. Maybe a lintian check
> could alarm packagers of this?
http://lintian.debian.org/tags/source-contains-prebuilt-windows-binary.html

--
WBR, wRAR
 
Old 08-17-2012, 11:14 AM
Jakub Wilk
 
Default Minified javascript files

* Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de>, 2012-08-17, 10:53:
3. Repacking the original tarball just to remove those files is extra
work.


Part of the problem is that we lack good tools to do this extra work
for us. Really, repacking shouldn't be a tedious operation, it
shouldn't take more than 5 seconds, it shouldn't require writing two
dozens lines of code and documentation.


But it usually does and also results in a source tarball which is
missing essential pieces of the software, so people who download it for
non-Debian usage will fail to run the shipped source just because we
removed an otherwise free piece of software.


Meh. How is it different from the software failing to build/work because
of other missing (build-)dependencies? Or: why did upstream stuffed this
JavaScript blob into their tarballs in the first place? (These are
serious questions, answers for which should bring us closer to a
solution for the problem.)


Also, it should be noted that repacking is not the only way of
satisfying DFSG2. Others that come to my mind:


1) Ask upstream to include the full source in their tarballs! (I know,
this is hard.)


2) Put the source somewhere in the debian/ directory. (Don't forget to
mention this fact in the copyright file.)


3) Make a new source package containing every jQuery version existing in
the wild, then build depend on that.


--
Jakub Wilk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120817111437.GA8518@jwilk.net">http://lists.debian.org/20120817111437.GA8518@jwilk.net
 
Old 08-17-2012, 11:39 AM
Pau Garcia i Quiles
 
Default Minified javascript files

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> wrote:

> 3) Make a new source package containing every jQuery version existing in the
> wild, then build depend on that.

FTP Masters do not like that solution.

Vincent's question was due to FTP masters complaining about the
package 'witty', which I maintain and he sponsors.

http://packages.qa.debian.org/w/witty.html

Witty does build-depend on libjs-jquery (it has for a long time, way
before FTP masters expressed any concern), then minifies it, and
symlinks it. But FTP Masters say the jquery.min.js must be removed
from witty.orig.tar.gz because the non-minified version is not
included.

Given that I'm not using upstream's jquery.min.js at all, I wonder why
I should repackage the source package.

How is an unused jquery.min.js in the original tarball different from
any other unused file (a picture, a README, or anything?) The users is
not expected to modify jquery.min.js ever, if he wants to rebuild the
binaries for witty, he is expected to modify libjs-jquery.

--
Pau Garcia i Quiles
http://www.elpauer.org
(Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKcBokuzz_iZK9qOhLgW=X+Mh02GR7JydsruSP34U6vtL4J4W g@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 08-17-2012, 12:03 PM
Raphael Hertzog
 
Default Minified javascript files

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
> Given that I'm not using upstream's jquery.min.js at all, I wonder why
> I should repackage the source package.

I agree with you that it's useless work. But the ftpmasters believe that
Debian is made of source and binary packages and that the content of the
source package should respect DFSG #2 “The program must include source
code[...]”.

Maybe we should fix DFSG #2 to say “The program must include source code
for all the files that gets installed in the Debian binary packages [...]“.

That way, there's no need to strip unused RFC, minified javascript, Flash files,
PDF without sources, etc. All this has been useless bureaucracy which has
drawn people away.

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook:
→ http://debian-handbook.info/get/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120817120337.GB23195@rivendell.home.ouaza.com">h ttp://lists.debian.org/20120817120337.GB23195@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
 
Old 08-17-2012, 12:37 PM
"Didier 'OdyX' Raboud"
 
Default Minified javascript files

Le vendredi, 17 août 2012 14.03:38, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> Maybe we should fix DFSG #2 to say “The program must include source code
> for all the files that gets installed in the Debian binary packages [...]“.

With this modification, upstream might then include (distributable) win32
executables (or whatever else) in their upstream tarballs and have them
distributed by the Debian mirrors network without us taking a close look at
them?

I don't see why we should only be looking at what we distribute in the
binaries we distribute and not in the sources: we are also distributing
"blessed" tarballs as a central part of our free software distribution. If we
stop doing that in "our" source tarballs, then why should be care about non-
recompiled blobs in our binary packages?

Cheers,

OdyX
 
Old 08-17-2012, 01:01 PM
Luca Falavigna
 
Default Minified javascript files

2012/8/17 Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>:
> Part of the problem is that we lack good tools to do this extra work for us.
> Really, repacking shouldn't be a tedious operation, it shouldn't take more
> than 5 seconds, it shouldn't require writing two dozens lines of code and
> documentation.

ACK.

Should we write a tool that, once and for all, allows to automate the process?
I think workflow should something similar to:
* tool should receive an URI of the orig tarball
* tool should download and unpack the orig tarball
* tool should compare orig tarball with already clean sources
* tool should not consider file differences, just file removals
* tool should generate a policy-compliant get-orig-source target based
on the diff

Also, where to put this tool? Devscripts?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CADk7b0OpYe8HzYYFSxRZ7wbxhugj=K9o8sbKW5YuVcWFBo1O9 A@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 08-17-2012, 01:08 PM
Luca Falavigna
 
Default Minified javascript files

2012/8/17 Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de>:
> But it usually does and also results in a source tarball which is
> missing essential pieces of the software, so people who download it for
> non-Debian usage will fail to run the shipped source just because we
> removed an otherwise free piece of software.

This does not make sense if the removed pieces are useless, as the
core of this discussion is about.

I also don't see the point of providing dozens of convenience copies
of the very same third-party software bundled with every single pet
package. If a software really needs a third-party software, just warn
in $buildsystem_of_choice and in INSTALL file.
Upstream should be really taugth not to reinventing the wheel again
and again and again...


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CADk7b0MxaZK+EJmOe1u9FdbEVimmkqX98r5GYDywSmA1BZXpv w@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CADk7b0MxaZK+EJmOe1u9FdbEVimmkqX98r5GYDywSmA1BZXpv w@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 08-17-2012, 01:14 PM
Andreas Tille
 
Default Minified javascript files

Hi Luca,

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 03:01:12PM +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote:
> 2012/8/17 Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>:
> > Part of the problem is that we lack good tools to do this extra work for us.
> > Really, repacking shouldn't be a tedious operation, it shouldn't take more
> > than 5 seconds, it shouldn't require writing two dozens lines of code and
> > documentation.
>
> ACK.
>
> Should we write a tool that, once and for all, allows to automate the process?
> I think workflow should something similar to:
> * tool should receive an URI of the orig tarball
> * tool should download and unpack the orig tarball
> * tool should compare orig tarball with already clean sources
> * tool should not consider file differences, just file removals
> * tool should generate a policy-compliant get-orig-source target based
> on the diff
>
> Also, where to put this tool? Devscripts?

Did you read

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/08/msg00397.html

and do you agree that a (enhanced) uscan could be this tool?

Kind regards

Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120817131449.GI6417@an3as.eu">http://lists.debian.org/20120817131449.GI6417@an3as.eu
 
Old 08-17-2012, 01:31 PM
Luca Falavigna
 
Default Minified javascript files

2012/8/17 Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu>:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/08/msg00397.html
> and do you agree that a (enhanced) uscan could be this tool?

Sounds good for the majority of the cases, I don't think there are too
many repacked sources in the archive for which it's impossible to
provide a watch file [0].

[0] maintainers' laziness is not a justification


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CADk7b0P1s++RCirmn9FP7gr3yqO8Mddo5w7GAWZ8Uomf4W7f+ Q@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CADk7b0P1s++RCirmn9FP7gr3yqO8Mddo5w7GAWZ8Uomf4W7f+ Q@mail.gmail.com
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org