Le vendredi 25 avril 2014 à 23:34 +0200, Emilien Klein a écrit : > 2014-04-24 18:34 GMT+02:00 Jérémy Lal <[email protected]>: > > The conclusion coming out of these dicussions could also go in > > developers reference or best packaging practices ? > > Makes sense. > > > Please fix this (badly formulated) proposal: > > > > Strict application of DFSG requires files generated from source in > > upstream tarball to be excluded > > "excluded from what" would be the question. How can we make explicit > that it must be removed from the upstream tarball?
i meant excluded from upstream tarball, which seems to be the safest solution (correct me if i'm wrong). > > , unless it is possible to regenerate the > > files and prove they are identical to the ones in the tarball. > > Minified files and browserified files > > What's a "browserified file"? I'm not familiar with that term. It (automatically) transforms a script and the modules it requires into a single file that can be used in a browser. The built file is often distributed in the upstream tarball. > > are examples of such files that > > could be excluded for that reason. > > A convenient way to achieve this is to use debian/copyright > > Files-Excluded field, see https://wiki.debian.org/UscanEnhancements. > > +Emilien > > _______________________________________________ > Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel _______________________________________________ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
