Re: Source files

2015-10-14 Thread Ole Streicher
Am 13.10.2015 um 22:23 schrieb Walter Landry: > Ole Streicher wrote: >> Walter Landry writes: >>> Ole Streicher wrote: What are the general guidelines here? Somewhere in written form? The DFSG does not contain a hint here.

Re: Source files

2015-10-14 Thread Ole Streicher
On 14.10.2015 10:35, Bastien Roucaries wrote: Le 14 octobre 2015 08:51:16 GMT+02:00, Ole Streicher a écrit : I am not a specialist at all for Javascript, and all I try is just to keep a Python package (with a very responsive upstream!) in a good shape. Unfortunately,

Re: Source files

2015-10-14 Thread Bastien Roucaries
Le 14 octobre 2015 08:51:16 GMT+02:00, Ole Streicher a écrit : > > >Am 13.10.2015 um 22:23 schrieb Walter Landry: >> Ole Streicher wrote: >>> Walter Landry writes: Ole Streicher wrote: > What are the

Re: Source files

2015-10-14 Thread Riley Baird
> What I meant here is that you should explain a bit what you consider a > source and what not This question comes up in so many discussions, we really need to have a definition that we can all live with, record it somewhere and then move on. I can think of several ideas: 1. Source code must

Re: Source files

2015-10-14 Thread Riley Baird
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:43:31 +1100 Riley Baird wrote: > > > > What I meant here is that you should explain a bit what you consider a > > > source and what not > > > > This question comes up in so many

Re: Source files

2015-10-14 Thread Francesco Poli
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:43:31 +1100 Riley Baird wrote: > > What I meant here is that you should explain a bit what you consider a > > source and what not > > This question comes up in so many discussions, we really need to have a > definition that we can all live with, record it somewhere and

Re: Source files

2015-10-14 Thread Ben Finney
Riley Baird writes: > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200 > Francesco Poli wrote: > > > I am personally convinced that nowadays the definition of source > > should *no longer* be regarded as an open question: I think

Re: Source files

2015-10-14 Thread Ángel González
On 15/10/15 00:50, Riley Baird wrote: On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: The alternatives you propose are vague at best. For further details on what I think about the definition of source, anyone interested may read my essay:

Re: Source files

2015-10-14 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:47:02PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : > > I am personally convinced that nowadays the definition of source should > *no longer* be regarded as an open question: I think that the most > commonly used and accepted definition of source code is the one found > in the GNU

Re: Source files

2015-10-14 Thread Riley Baird
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 10:26:47 +1100 Ben Finney wrote: > Riley Baird > writes: > > > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200 > > Francesco Poli wrote: > > > > > I am personally convinced that

Re: Source files

2015-10-14 Thread Ben Finney
Riley Baird writes: > Okay, I guess that handling problematic cases by consensus works too. > We can intuitively state what is and what is not source in practically > all cases, even if we can't give a reason for it. We should be able to give