Hi David and team,

2014-04-23 23:17 GMT+02:00 "David Prévot" <da...@tilapin.org>:
> Hi,
>> - Regarding your latest commit 719083c "do not install should.min.js -
>> agreed with debian-js team": this is a long discussion, the short
>> version is that you should repackage the upstream tarball to remove
>> the included .min.js file
> Even if some people sounds attached to repack packages just to be on a
> alleged safe-side of their own reading of the DFSG, that statement still
> violates the developers reference (添ou *should* upload packages with a
> pristine source tarball if possible納0]), and doesn稚 add any value to the
> package. It sounds weird to enforce such view inside the JavaScript team
> while it痴 not enforced for other kinds of binaries distributed in the
> archive as part of source packages.
> 0:
> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#repackagedorigtargz

David, as you know we had this debate last month.
I am also in favor of not having to repackage when minified files are
present in the upstream tarball, but the current policy is that it has
to be done.
I am just making sure that we apply the same rules consistently: I've
had to update my jquery-lazyload package, and François-Régis also
updated jquery-coolfieldset.

On defense of the current policy, it bases itself on a reading of the
DFSG which is a stronger document than the Developer's Reference.

I only see 2 options possible:
- You continue the discussion where I stopped [1], and bring this
issue in a constructive way to other developers outside of our team to
get their input as well
- We enforce the current team policy for all packages maintained by
the Javascript team. This includes making the policy clear on our
policy page [2] (asking again: who can do that?) and we audit all
current team-maintained packages to see if any is currently keeping
the minified files.

[2] https://wiki.debian.org/Javascript/Policy

Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list

Reply via email to