Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 10:09:19)
> 2014-05-05 0:32 GMT+02:00 Daniel Kahn Gillmor <d...@fifthhorseman.net>:
> > On 05/04/2014 05:31 PM, Emilien Klein wrote:
> >> No other comments from the team on Jérémy's proposal?
> >
> > If the upstream tarball has both the original and minified javascript, I
> > don't think we need to actively re-pack the upstream tarball to get rid
> > of the minified javascript, any more than we need to actively re-pack
> > upstream source that includes .png icon sources alongside their .svg source.
> >
> > We should not shipping the upstream-minified files in our .debs  -- we
> > should re-minify the canonical source and ship the output of that step,
> > if we need to ship minified files.
> The current policy is to repackage the upstream tarball if it contains
> a minified file, and regenerate the minified files as part of the
> build process.
> This has been debated in March (please see the first message on this
> email thread for details).

> Although my original position is the same as what you outline, the 
> outcome of the discussion is that the current policy will not be 
> changed. I am thus currently pushing to get the policy formalized, by 
> explicitly referencing it on our policy page.

What exactly do you mean by "formalized"?

I believe Jérémy suggested improving the Debian-wide documentation for 
best practices - Developers Reference.

Daniel is talking about Debian Policy.

Seems you are talking about a policy for this team.

I see no need for this team to have a policy more strict than Debian 
generally regarding tarball repackaging.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature

Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list

Reply via email to