Hi Bastian,
Thank you for the extra clarification about what this bug is about, and for the
extra details.
> We can play a word game but "missing sources" is exactly about
> "non-source files". If a file is contained in a package that is not a
> source file then its sources are missing.
Okay, the clarification is clear, and rest assured I was not playing a game on
words.
[…]
> Please take a look at analytics.html and think about the question: "Is
> this a source file or not?”
Here is the file analytics.html:
<script>
(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){i['GoogleAnalyticsObject']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){
(i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o),
m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m)
})(window,document,'script','https://www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js','ga');
ga('create', 'UA-19077541-2', 'auto');
ga('send', 'pageview');
</script>
<script>
window.heap=window.heap||[],heap.load=function(e,t){window.heap.appid=e,window.heap.config=t=t||{};var
r=t.forceSSL||"https:"===document.location.protocol,a=document.createElement("script");a.type="text/javascript",a.async=!0,a.src=(r?"https:":"http:")+"//cdn.heapanalytics.com/js/heap-"+e+".js";var
n=document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0];n.parentNode.insertBefore(a,n);for(var
o=function(e){return
function(){heap.push([e].concat(Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments,0)))}},p=["addEventProperties","addUserProperties","clearEventProperties","identify","removeEventProperty","setEventProperties","track","unsetEventProperty"],c=0;c<p.length;c++)heap[p[c]]=o(p[c])};
heap.load("1135832181");
</script>
I would say that this is not a source file in de sense that it is not in the
preferred form of modification.
The Javascript it contains is minified. That is not the preferred form of
modification.
[…]
> I know about that bug report (I have already referenced it here). It was
> closed without actually fixing it. The quill files are still non-source
> files because they are not in their preferred form of modification.
Ah, okay, thanks for that clarification too.
When this bug report [1] titled "Some sources are not included in your
package” was closed by me,
I genuinely believed that the fix made was fixing the issue the bug was about.
But if you believe that the bug was not fixed, then feel free to re-open it.
We can then continue the discussion there.
I believe that this course of action is clearer since then the topic can be
discussed in the context of the bug.
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1017083
> So this bug is primarily about the missing source (Policy violation).
> When you have addressed that you can downgrade the severity to important
> to address the secondary issue of supposed privacy violations.
That is okay.
So what I suggest is to move the issue of the missing source back to that bug
where it belongs, to bug #1017083.
That now having been moved there, the current bug, titled "non-source Google
Analytics file” can then have its severity change to important.
I intend to change that severity soon after.
We may then continue the discussion on that google analytics file here at this
bug.
As is clear from all of this, my current main concern is that there’s a release
critical bug against bibledit, but yet it is not very clear why this bug is so
critical. So changing that severity address this concern.
Being free of that concern now, it’s possible to move on about the content of
the bug report.
Although I intend to change the severity of the bug titled non-source Google
Analytics file”
I am not intending to reopen bug #1017083 because currently I believe it is
fixed.
Please reopen this bug if you believe it’s not fixed yet.
Thanks for all the input on making the package better and better.
Teus.
