On 1 May 2014 02:10, Jérémy Lal <kapo...@melix.org> wrote: > Le jeudi 01 mai 2014 à 01:11 +0200, Jérémy Lal a écrit : >> Le jeudi 01 mai 2014 à 00:18 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : >> > Quoting Leo Iannacone (2014-04-30 23:26:44) >> > > On 30 April 2014 23:11, Jérémy Lal <kapo...@melix.org> wrote: >> > > > It's not all right to remove other files without good reasons. >> > > > Here, you can have a doubt about the license of the other css file, but >> > > > there is no doubt the js file is correctly licensed, so no reason to >> > > > prune it. >> > > >> > > But ... does it make sense leave snip of code that does not work? >> > > >> > > I mean, if you `apt-get source' the package you will see run >> > > bechmark/index.js. You may want to exec it.. and then?? >> > > It fails.. because try to open large.css, excluded from source. >> > > >> > > $ grep css benchmark/index.js >> > > var small = fs.readFileSync('benchmark/small.css', 'utf8'); >> > > var large = fs.readFileSync('benchmark/large.css', 'utf8') >> > > >> > > Is it not better in this case remove the whole directory? >> > >> > The better approach is not to remove more code, but to complement the >> > minimal code stripping with a patch that makes the remaining code work >> > again. >> >> Even better, let's bug upstream about that. After all they have no >> interest in keeping licensing issues. > > https://github.com/reworkcss/css-parse/issues/84 > > I'll file a PR later, let's see what happens.