2014-05-05 18:59 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk>:
> Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 12:16:25)
>> 2014-05-05 11:07 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk>:
> [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
> Which "requirements" if not ones restricting beyond Debian in general?
I'm not following your question: the requirement in question is what's
thread from March/April and the (counting and growing) 15 in this
email thread: removing upstream-provided minified files from the
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)