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 08-28-2012, 10:56 AM
Ian Jackson
 
Default Minified javascript files

Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: Minified javascript files"):
> The problem I see with it, is that it adds complexity to the judgement
> of whether something is suitable for a source package or not (on all
> actors involved: maintainer, ftp-masters, QA, bug reporters, etc.). With
> something like that we'll have 3 cases:
>
> - DFSG-free source[1] -> stay in the tarball, not hidden
> - non DFSG-free "binary" -> must be removed, via repacking
> - "binary" generated from DFSG-free source available elsewhere in the
> archive -> stay in the tarball, hidden at the dpkg-source level

That's not what I was proposing. I was proposing that we would treat
your 2nd and 3rd points identically. They would then be in our
archive in the .orig.tar.gz files.

If this is not ideologically[1] acceptable to other members of the
project in your third case, then I think we should not do it at all
even for the second case.

[1] NB I do not mean to use "ideological" in a pejorative way. I am
very comfortable with the idea that Debian might make decisions based
on ideology. The root question being discussed here is IMO
essentially ideological.

If we do decide that we must remove the non-free parts from the
tarballs, repacking upstream's sources, rather than just having them
removed by dpkg-source during unpack, then I certainly welcome the
provision of better tools to help with that.

Ian.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20540.41973.750949.958454@chiark.greenend.org.uk"> http://lists.debian.org/20540.41973.750949.958454@chiark.greenend.org.uk
 
Old 08-28-2012, 07:40 PM
Stefano Zacchiroli
 
Default Minified javascript files

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:56:53AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: Minified javascript files"):
> > The problem I see with it, is that it adds complexity to the judgement
> > of whether something is suitable for a source package or not (on all
> > actors involved: maintainer, ftp-masters, QA, bug reporters, etc.). With
> > something like that we'll have 3 cases:
> >
> > - DFSG-free source[1] -> stay in the tarball, not hidden
> > - non DFSG-free "binary" -> must be removed, via repacking
> > - "binary" generated from DFSG-free source available elsewhere in the
> > archive -> stay in the tarball, hidden at the dpkg-source level
>
> That's not what I was proposing. I was proposing that we would treat
> your 2nd and 3rd points identically. They would then be in our
> archive in the .orig.tar.gz files.

Right, that's, strictly speaking, not what you proposed. But it seems to
me that to support the argument "it's not SC violation because the
source is available in a different package", you do need to perform such
a distinction.

Anyway, the most important part seems to be your ideological[1]
question:

> If this is not ideologically[1] acceptable

The point here is whether having non-free material, which is in
distributed tarballs but hidden by dpkg-source, would constitute
inclusion of non-free material in what we call Debian. (Of course we're
talking about "main" here.)

Personally, I wouldn't consider that acceptable.

Even if I were ready to accept the idea that "hidden for any reasonable
purpose" non-free material could be part of Debian tarballs (and I'm
not), I wouldn't consider dpkg-source hiding good enough. The reason is
that what to do with a .orig.tar.gz file --- invoking dpkg-source on it
--- is obvious to anyone with Debian knowledge, but it is obscure to
anyone else. A random *nix user with no Debian knowledge would just open
it up, find non-free material, and be induced to conclude that it is
part of Debian.

For DFSG-related purposes dpkg-source hiding is just not enough, IMO.
(Thought it'd still be fine for the 3rd case above.)

Cheers.


[1] same footnote of yours:
> [1] NB I do not mean to use "ideological" in a pejorative way. I am
> very comfortable with the idea that Debian might make decisions based
> on ideology. The root question being discussed here is IMO
> essentially ideological.

--
Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
 
Old 08-29-2012, 06:07 AM
Thomas Goirand
 
Default Minified javascript files

On 08/29/2012 03:40 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> The point here is whether having non-free material, which is in
> distributed tarballs but hidden by dpkg-source, would constitute
> inclusion of non-free material in what we call Debian. (Of course we're
> talking about "main" here.)
>
> Personally, I wouldn't consider that acceptable.
>
I agree. And with latest addition in uscan, we have no excuse anymore.

Thomas


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 503DB18B.20207@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/503DB18B.20207@debian.org
 
Old 09-04-2012, 07:40 PM
Jon Dowland
 
Default Minified javascript files

On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 12:27:02PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> 1) We have the source for the parts that we ship in binary packages,
> yes. We do not, however, necessarily have the actual source for the
> minified files unused for binary packages yet redistributed by us in
> source tarballs: Just as with autotools files we generally do not verify
> that these files has same source as the source we instead use for our
> binary packages.

That's true; however, it's a source of *potential* bugs, rather than
definitely a bug in every such package, which is an improvement on the
view that they violate the DFSG, where that would be the case.


--
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/20120904194043.GA15040@debian
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:33 PM.

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