Le vendredi 25 avril 2014 à 23:34 +0200, Emilien Klein a écrit :
> 2014-04-24 18:34 GMT+02:00 Jérémy Lal <kapo...@melix.org>:
> > 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.