For the record, I wish the message I am now responding to, and other subsequent responses and discussion, were being sent to the bug mail address *in addition to* all the other addresses they're being sent to. I am choosing to send my response here to the bug mail address, at least in part so there is a record there that not all the discussion related to this bug is available at the bug itself, but instead is only found in the debian-ctte list archives.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 10:30:01AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > Here are some factors to consider: > [...] > In other words, the best way forward for getting any decision would be > an RC bug against perl claiming that the Configure script is not DFSG-free. > For the record, having read Mr. Hartman's draft analysis at https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=830978#217 , and some other things related to the perl Configure script source code availability issue, I admit that I would be ... "amused", for a suitable definition of the word amused, if this issue were brought up. (*cough*). > If anyone thinks that this hardball approach would not be necessary, > please describe to Pirate Praveen a better way for getting an explicit > decision in time for stretch. > Get a variance from RC-buggyness for browserified Javascript for Stretch, and package grunt and/or alternative for Stretch+1. That's what he's asked for, anyway. Admittedly, if grunt et al fails to be successfully packaged for Stretch+1, and/or if packaging grunt et al proves to be insufficient for the browserified Javascript source code availability issue, then the RC-bug issue reappears for Stretch+1, with an even more tangled thicket around it But, that's the risk one takes. Hope this is of some use, interest. Thanks for your time. Be well. Joseph
