2014-05-05 18:59 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]>: > Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 12:16:25) >> 2014-05-05 11:07 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]>: > > [skipping parts on who said what: lacks consensus] > >>> I see no need for this team to have a policy more strict than Debian >>> generally regarding tarball repackaging. >> >> It's not about being more strict. >> It's about explicitly mentioning a requirement that is not clear to a >> number of our co-packagers. > > Sorry, but I can only read it as you contradicting yourself above...
The policy of removing upstream-provided minified files comes from the interpretation of DFSG §2. So stating this policy on our policy page is not being stricter than Debian in general, just being clear on the workflow that packages maintained by the team must follow. Looking at the fact that this topic came up for the last 3 packages that asked to be reviewed, it makes sense to have this listed on the policy page. > Which "requirements" if not ones restricting beyond Debian in general? I'm not following your question: the requirement in question is what's being discussed in the 31 emails of the "JavaScript policy?" email thread from March/April and the (counting and growing) 15 in this email thread: removing upstream-provided minified files from the upstream tarball. Or do we really want to have this debate started again for each new package asking the team to be reviewed? It seems to much more efficient to just be able to point to our policy page than having to rehash the same arguments again. The day that no new JS package is proposed for review with it's upstream minified files, we can always remove that from the policy (spoiler: I don't see this happening soon) +Emilien _______________________________________________ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
