On November 22, 2014 5:57:56 AM EST, Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> wrote: >On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 07:12:53AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> Your analysis is rather different than that of the FTP Team. See >> >https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/1948618.u6YZvnFvaf@scott-latitude-e6320 >> >> Please readjust the severity back to serious. That is the correct >value. > >I have explained my opinion in ><https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/05/msg00191.html>: the >source *is* in Debian, just in a different source package. The actual >code, used by the package when installed, is used from that different >source package. This is no different from something using the >"Built-Using" header. > >The minified javascript library is a convenience copy of free software, >but can be exchanged by another copy or implementation of the exact >same >functionality, as I assert by symlinking the actually-used file from >the >file system. > >I remain unconvinced that removing something from a source package that >is shipped identically elsewhere in Debian is useful to our users, our >upstreams, our maintainers, or free software in general. > >Please explain to me how it is, before asserting that I'm wrong.
Just to make sure I understand you correctly: The way I read what you are saying is that you believe binary only artifacts used for the upstream build system as embedded convenience copies are okay as long as some version of the source for it exists somewhere in the archive? Is that right? Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
