On 2016-10-12 21:41, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>  ❦ 12 octobre 2016 18:54 CEST, Martín Ferrari <tin...@tincho.org> :
> > 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 personally see auto* more critical than minified JS.
The chance that it is impossible to rebuild is higher :~)

Quoting https://wiki.debian.org/Autoreconf:
"Autoreconfing on build is good practice in Debian."
Not required, but recommended.

> Dunno. It would be great if the line wasn't challenged just to prove a
> point

I don't think tincho nor myself want to challenge a line, we
would like to know where it is :~)

If I package a compiler and put y.tab.c in the package, drop
grammar.y in d/m-s/, would it be OK or not? If I don't even
check that bison actually can process the file, would it
still be OK?

> and eject a lot of packages from main while DFSG#2 is correctly
> met.

There are some packages, that currently have only generated
JS files without the original sources (not only SASS and
CoffeeScript, but also large JS libraries, that are bundled from
many source files), which seems not in line with DFSG.

No need to eject them from main, however, because maintainers
can just add the missing sources in the way they like.

Reply via email to