❦ 12 octobre 2016 18:54 CEST, Martín Ferrari <tin...@tincho.org> :

> I might have forgotten some important parts, or I missed the
> announcements when I was inactive for a while. But I am confused by
> these 2 statements, and would love to get some pointers to learn more:
>> On 2016-10-11 15:28, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>>> Those specific sources are buildable from tools in main (aka
>>> coffeescript compiler, sass compiler, cat + uglifyjs). There is no hard
>>> requirement to rebuild from source when building the package.
> I had always understood that rebuilding from source was a hard
> requirement. Is this not the case any more?

This has never been the case. Since the beginning, there was no
requirements to regenerate autoconf stuff.

> I don't think that shipping a binary compiled upstream should be
> allowed, so where's the line drawn?

Dunno. It would be great if the line wasn't challenged just to prove a
point and eject a lot of packages from main while DFSG#2 is correctly

>> It remains the originally reported problem, that the sources
>> (*.coffee and *.scss) are not under debian/missing-sources/.
>> Probably a normal bug, not serious nor wishlist.
> I have never heard of debian/missing-sources. What is the
> policy/documentation regarding this? I have repackaged tarballs many
> times to add missing sources, I did not think there was another way to
> do it!

Source packages are considered as a whole. So, it is possible to put the
sources in the debian/ directory instead of in orig.tar.gz. Repack is
only needed if you want to remove stuff.
Parenthesise to avoid ambiguity.
            - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to