Re: Source requirements and debian/missing-sources/ (was: "Browserified" stuff)

2016-10-12 Thread W. Martin Borgert 
On 2016-10-12 21:22, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 09:00:50PM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> > Who cares about yaccs and
> > bisons?
>
> You're thinking small.  Why not ship a pre-compiled ELF, built with some
> paid version of ICC (screw silly sods on AMD chips like me[1]).

I was planning this, but was not aware of a compiler that
produces multi-arch binaries for all eleven architectures.
Thanks for solving my problem :~)

> > If I understand correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, this
> > directory is for sources of files that are in your source package, but
> > not in the binary.
> >
> > Example: A source package had an embedded source copy of B.min.js
> > (minified, non-source), but the binary package does not have it,
> > because A depends on libjs-B and has the right debian/links. Then you
> > can put the B source into As d/m-s. If B.min.js is actually used in A,
> > d/m-s is not sufficient. But maybe I'm on the wrong track...
>
> That's my understanding as well.

It seems neither tincho nor myself could find that codified.
There is only lintian...

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=736873#8
talks specifically about minified JS, btw.

Re: Source requirements and debian/missing-sources/ (was: "Browserified" stuff)

2016-10-12 Thread Adam Borowski 
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 09:00:50PM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> Quoting Martín Ferrari :
> >I had always understood that rebuilding from source was a hard
> >requirement. Is this not the case any more?
> >
> >I don't think that shipping a binary compiled upstream should be
> >allowed, so where's the line drawn?
> 
> This is an interesting question indeed.
> 
> If it is allowed for a package in main to ship a pre-compiled JS file
> with only some source files under debian/missing-sources/, it could be
> tempting to use all kind of pre-compiled *.c files in a package and do
> not care about a proper build process. Who cares about yaccs and
> bisons?

You're thinking small.  Why not ship a pre-compiled ELF, built with some
paid version of ICC (screw silly sods on AMD chips like me[1]).  Just think
of all that saved compilation time and avoided FTBFSes on new gcc versions!
Then you put a non-working dump of .c files, not necessarily the same as you
compiled, without a build system, into debian/missing-sources/ then never
update them.

> > I have never heard of debian/missing-sources. What is the
> > policy/documentation regarding this? I have repackaged tarballs many
> > times to add missing sources, I did not think there was another way to
> > do it!
>
> If I understand correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, this
> directory is for sources of files that are in your source package, but
> not in the binary.
>
> Example: A source package had an embedded source copy of B.min.js
> (minified, non-source), but the binary package does not have it,
> because A depends on libjs-B and has the right debian/links. Then you
> can put the B source into As d/m-s. If B.min.js is actually used in A,
> d/m-s is not sufficient. But maybe I'm on the wrong track...

That's my understanding as well.


[1]. ICC produces code that has different paths for different CPUs, using
optimized code when some instructions are available at runtime; when the
cpuid is not "GenuineIntel", it chooses a working but carefully deoptimized
variant despite the CPU having instructions that it wants.
-- 
A MAP07 (Dead Simple) raspberry tincture recipe: 0.5l 95% alcohol, 1kg
raspberries, 0.4kg sugar; put into a big jar for 1 month.  Filter out and
throw away the fruits (can dump them into a cake, etc), let the drink age
at least 3-6 months.

Source requirements and debian/missing-sources/ (was: "Browserified" stuff)

2016-10-12 Thread W. Martin Borgert 

Quoting Martín Ferrari :

I had always understood that rebuilding from source was a hard
requirement. Is this not the case any more?

I don't think that shipping a binary compiled upstream should be
allowed, so where's the line drawn?


This is an interesting question indeed.

If it is allowed for a package in main to ship a pre-compiled JS file
with only some source files under debian/missing-sources/, it could be
tempting to use all kind of pre-compiled *.c files in a package and do
not care about a proper build process. Who cares about yaccs and
bisons?


I have never heard of debian/missing-sources. What is the
policy/documentation regarding this? I have repackaged tarballs many
times to add missing sources, I did not think there was another way to
do it!


If I understand correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, this
directory is for sources of files that are in your source package, but
not in the binary.

Example: A source package had an embedded source copy of B.min.js
(minified, non-source), but the binary package does not have it,
because A depends on libjs-B and has the right debian/links. Then you
can put the B source into As d/m-s. If B.min.js is actually used in A,
d/m-s is not sufficient. But maybe I'm on the wrong track...

Cheers

Re: Source Requirements

2014-04-29 Thread Thomas Koch 
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 02:26:49 AM Scott Kitterman wrote:
 Recently there have been a number of questions about source requirements
 for the Debian archive.  The FTP master view of this are based on both
 item 1 of the social contract (Debian will remain 100% free) and item 2 of
 the DFSG (The program must include source code ...).  We consider source
 packages to be part of the Debian system and as such all files in source
 packages must come with their source as required by the DFSG (and be
 distributable under a free license).

For clarity: Is it OK for languageCompilerX, which happens to be written in 
languageX, to ship a compiled binary of languageCompilerX in the source 
package for languageCompilerX?

Regards, Thomas Koch


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201404292202.11134.tho...@koch.ro

Re: Source Requirements

2014-04-29 Thread Dimitri John Ledkov 
On 29 April 2014 21:02, Thomas Koch tho...@koch.ro wrote:
 On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 02:26:49 AM Scott Kitterman wrote:
 Recently there have been a number of questions about source requirements
 for the Debian archive.  The FTP master view of this are based on both
 item 1 of the social contract (Debian will remain 100% free) and item 2 of
 the DFSG (The program must include source code ...).  We consider source
 packages to be part of the Debian system and as such all files in source
 packages must come with their source as required by the DFSG (and be
 distributable under a free license).

 For clarity: Is it OK for languageCompilerX, which happens to be written in
 languageX, to ship a compiled binary of languageCompilerX in the source
 package for languageCompilerX?


of course not, do a bootstrap each time, or provide a separate
bootstrap package in the archive, such that other people can reproduce
the boostrap process. circular build-dependency on one-self is always
bad.
What's your concrete example at the moment? or is this just a
hypothetical corner case? (typically resolved with a package doing
profile builds - first doing a stage1 upload, and then upload the
full build, or a separate src+bin package which is a
fallback/alternative build-dependency for the bootstrap)

-- 
Regards,

Dimitri.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/canbhluge06aux6ysh5mffjx2tivsw3gad8km0dg4yxsdox9...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Source Requirements

2014-04-29 Thread Cameron Norman 
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Dimitri John Ledkov x...@debian.org wrote:
 On 29 April 2014 21:02, Thomas Koch tho...@koch.ro wrote:
 On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 02:26:49 AM Scott Kitterman wrote:
 Recently there have been a number of questions about source requirements
 for the Debian archive.  The FTP master view of this are based on both
 item 1 of the social contract (Debian will remain 100% free) and item 2 of
 the DFSG (The program must include source code ...).  We consider source
 packages to be part of the Debian system and as such all files in source
 packages must come with their source as required by the DFSG (and be
 distributable under a free license).

 For clarity: Is it OK for languageCompilerX, which happens to be written in
 languageX, to ship a compiled binary of languageCompilerX in the source
 package for languageCompilerX?


 of course not, do a bootstrap each time, or provide a separate
 bootstrap package in the archive, such that other people can reproduce
 the boostrap process. circular build-dependency on one-self is always
 bad.
 What's your concrete example at the moment? or is this just a
 hypothetical corner case?

I am unsure if they have done so yet, but the developers of the Go
compiler expressed the intention to start writing the compiler in Go,
not C. They also wanted to write the compiler in the most recent
stable version of Go, so you would need Go 1.3 to compile Go 1.4 --
goc 1.1 would not compile anything but =1.2.

Best,
--
Cameron Norman


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CALZWFRKTf7vzO4XH01xsr-T2e=tkgwow6b-qz99rsgggbwd...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Source Requirements

2014-04-29 Thread Andreas Barth 
* Dimitri John Ledkov (x...@debian.org) [140429 23:34]:
 On 29 April 2014 21:02, Thomas Koch tho...@koch.ro wrote:
  On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 02:26:49 AM Scott Kitterman wrote:
  Recently there have been a number of questions about source requirements
  for the Debian archive.  The FTP master view of this are based on both
  item 1 of the social contract (Debian will remain 100% free) and item 2 of
  the DFSG (The program must include source code ...).  We consider source
  packages to be part of the Debian system and as such all files in source
  packages must come with their source as required by the DFSG (and be
  distributable under a free license).
 
  For clarity: Is it OK for languageCompilerX, which happens to be written in
  languageX, to ship a compiled binary of languageCompilerX in the source
  package for languageCompilerX?
 
 
 of course not, do a bootstrap each time, or provide a separate
 bootstrap package in the archive, such that other people can reproduce
 the boostrap process. circular build-dependency on one-self is always
 bad.

You mean like e.g. gcc should be able to bootstrap without gcc? (I
would consider it ok for at least all compilers in build-essential.)


Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140429214332.gy20...@mails.so.argh.org

Re: Source Requirements

2014-04-29 Thread Russ Allbery 
Andreas Barth a...@ayous.org writes:
 * Dimitri John Ledkov (x...@debian.org) [140429 23:34]:

 of course not, do a bootstrap each time, or provide a separate
 bootstrap package in the archive, such that other people can reproduce
 the boostrap process. circular build-dependency on one-self is always
 bad.

 You mean like e.g. gcc should be able to bootstrap without gcc? (I
 would consider it ok for at least all compilers in build-essential.)

The standard way to do this is to hand-inject the first package (usually
by cross-building it) and then build-depend on yourself, meaning that you
use the existing compiler in the archive to build the next version for the
archive.  See, for example, gnat-4.6.  Shipping a pre-compiled binary
doesn't sound like the best solution.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87mwf3dcnp@windlord.stanford.edu

Re: Source Requirements

2014-04-28 Thread Ben Finney 
Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com writes:

 Recently there have been a number of questions about source
 requirements for the Debian archive. The FTP master view of this [is:]
 We consider source packages to be part of the Debian system and as
 such all files in source packages must come with their source as
 required by the DFSG (and be distributable under a free license).

Thank you for this clear and concise statement, it is very helpful to
know the official position on this matter.

-- 
 \  “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too |
  `\  much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.” |
_o__)—Thomas Jefferson, 1791-12-23 |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85k3a8kdd3@benfinney.id.au