Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] JS policy: repackaging upstream tarball when minified js files are present (was: Call for review: should.js packages)
On 7 May 2014 13:41, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: I guess I understand my confusion now: In the debate last 2 months, there were some pretty strong arguments advanced why keeping the minified files was breaking the social contract (and thus RC-worthy) I looks like now that it is not necessarily as black and white. That has not changed: Some (including me) pretty strongly believe that keeping the minified files (not breaks not the social contract but) is in violation of Debian Policy and thus worthy of release-candidate bugs. It is up to those choosing not to follow guidelines to defend their reasoning that that is not the case. Just as before. Let's thus keep this as a recommendation/guideline/best practice for our team, and see how/if the debate comes to a resolution at the level of the entire project. Please note that I only claim guidelines can *help* avoid discussion - by either a) clearly documenting what is safe to do if you don't want trouble, or b) summarizing the essentials of one half of the debate - ideally cutting future threads in half. Imagine threads where half the posts are shrunk to stuff like How is your $foo compliant with Debian Policy §§x.y? Point $bar in our guideline addresses that.. Who can put Jérémy's text at the location Jonas mentions? Anyone understanding how wiki works and able to get a wiki.debian.org user account. :-) Hi all! I edited these pages: * https://wiki.debian.org/Javascript/Policy (js policy) * https://wiki.debian.org/Javascript/Nodejs/Manual (nodejs policy) And added the exclude-files paragraph (as reported in this discussion) and reviewed the style. If someone want to take a look, just to be sure I did not put any false sentence.. All the best, Leo. ___ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] JS policy: repackaging upstream tarball when minified js files are present (was: Call for review: should.js packages)
2014-05-06 7:58 GMT+02:00 Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org: Le mardi 06 mai 2014 à 02:57 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 23:35:34) 2014-05-05 21:31 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk: Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 20:57:39) Or do we really want to have this debate started again for each new package asking the team to be reviewed? I believe we need not have same debate for each new package, if we document what we (or most of us) find to be best practices. What is your suggestion for documenting that? Somewhere below https://wiki.debian.org/Javascript. If calling the page Policy implies strict rules, then I would prefer not writing it there but instead at e.g. Guidelines or BestPractices. What do others think? That it's correct. Jérémy. I guess I understand my confusion now: In the debate last 2 months, there were some pretty strong arguments advanced why keeping the minified files was breaking the social contract (and thus RC-worthy) I looks like now that it is not necessarily as black and white. Let's thus keep this as a recommendation/guideline/best practice for our team, and see how/if the debate comes to a resolution at the level of the entire project. Who can put Jérémy's text at the location Jonas mentions? Cheers, +Emilien ___ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] JS policy: repackaging upstream tarball when minified js files are present (was: Call for review: should.js packages)
Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-07 09:08:11) 2014-05-06 7:58 GMT+02:00 Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org: Le mardi 06 mai 2014 à 02:57 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 23:35:34) 2014-05-05 21:31 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk: Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 20:57:39) Or do we really want to have this debate started again for each new package asking the team to be reviewed? I believe we need not have same debate for each new package, if we document what we (or most of us) find to be best practices. What is your suggestion for documenting that? Somewhere below https://wiki.debian.org/Javascript. If calling the page Policy implies strict rules, then I would prefer not writing it there but instead at e.g. Guidelines or BestPractices. I guess I understand my confusion now: In the debate last 2 months, there were some pretty strong arguments advanced why keeping the minified files was breaking the social contract (and thus RC-worthy) I looks like now that it is not necessarily as black and white. That has not changed: Some (including me) pretty strongly believe that keeping the minified files (not breaks not the social contract but) is in violation of Debian Policy and thus worthy of release-candidate bugs. It is up to those choosing not to follow guidelines to defend their reasoning that that is not the case. Just as before. Let's thus keep this as a recommendation/guideline/best practice for our team, and see how/if the debate comes to a resolution at the level of the entire project. Please note that I only claim guidelines can *help* avoid discussion - by either a) clearly documenting what is safe to do if you don't want trouble, or b) summarizing the essentials of one half of the debate - ideally cutting future threads in half. Imagine threads where half the posts are shrunk to stuff like How is your $foo compliant with Debian Policy §§x.y? Point $bar in our guideline addresses that.. Who can put Jérémy's text at the location Jonas mentions? Anyone understanding how wiki works and able to get a wiki.debian.org user account. :-) - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature ___ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] JS policy: repackaging upstream tarball when minified js files are present (was: Call for review: should.js packages)
Hi Daniel, 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. +Emilien ___ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] JS policy: repackaging upstream tarball when minified js files are present (was: Call for review: should.js packages)
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 signature.asc Description: signature ___ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] JS policy: repackaging upstream tarball when minified js files are present (was: Call for review: should.js packages)
Hi Jonas, 2014-05-05 11:07 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk: 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? By formalized, I mean written clearly for everyone to see. Since we're holding these discussions inside the JS team for a number of new packages, it feels appropriate to have a place we can direct folks to, as in you should remove the minified js files, as explained on our policy page, see httpYYY I believe Jérémy suggested improving the Debian-wide documentation for best practices - Developers Reference. Jérémy says could also go in developers reference or best packaging practices ?. I understand also as being in addition to our policy page which is what I proposed in my first email in this thread. This email thread started as a rename of the reviewing of the should.js package, so as not to start yet again the entire debate as we did in March/April with jquery-coolfieldset and jquery-lazyload. I'll let Jérémy further explain his view if I'm misinterpreting his intent behind the proposal of the text blob. Daniel is talking about Debian Policy. I don't see that in Daniel's message, and I don't think it matters in this discussion. Daniel holds the view (similar to mine at the start of this debate in March) that we shouldn't need to remove the minified js files from the upstream tarball. That's exactly the point of wanting to have explictly written on our policy page thou shall remove the minified file from the upstream tarball, since it is pretty clear to me that a lot of our Debian colleagues don't share this view. If we believe this is the correct way to go, let's at least start by having it mentioned explicitly on our project's policy, and then push further to update the Debian-wide documentation for best practices. Seems you are talking about a policy for this team. Yes, as stated in my first message (and a couple before that, when we were debating this last month) 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. To summarize: our policy page currently mentions This document is still work in progress. Please check the mailing list archives for the latest discussions about it. I am proposing we update the policy page to refer to the various discussions held on said mailing list, so that it becomes more visible for packagers wanting to join the team that minified files should be removed from the upstream package. The next step after having the policy page updated is to audit all our team-maintained packages, to see if any still contain upstream-provided minified files, and file RC bugs against them (and then fixing the bugs ;) ). I don't want to start on that project before it is crystal-clear that minified files are to be removed, and having the policy-page updated is a good way to make this clear. Let me know if you disagree with this, and if so what your suggestion is to make this clear to packagers joining the team. +Emilien ___ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] JS policy: repackaging upstream tarball when minified js files are present (was: Call for review: should.js packages)
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... Which requirements if not ones restricting beyond Debian in general? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature ___ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] JS policy: repackaging upstream tarball when minified js files are present (was: Call for review: should.js packages)
On 05/05/2014 06:16 AM, Emilien Klein wrote: 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. FWIW, if the exclusions in debian/copyright (those mentioned on the wiki) interact properly with uscan, and if the uscan-based repackaging is deterministic (e.g. run it twice on the upstream tarball and get the same repacked tarball, byte-for-byte), and if all of our packages have valid debian/watch files, so that the normal package update is uscan, then i can live with this policy. I personally don't think it seems necessary, but if it encourages people to use standard tools, and to ensure that those tools are in good working order, and to document our relationships with upstream, then it could be a good thing overall. --dkg PS i haven't tested all of the conditions i mentioned above, i'm just hypothesizing and haven't had time to investigate further. sorry for my laziness! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] JS policy: repackaging upstream tarball when minified js files are present (was: Call for review: should.js packages)
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 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 Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] JS policy: repackaging upstream tarball when minified js files are present (was: Call for review: should.js packages)
Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 20:57:39) 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. As recent discussions (not so much here but) at debian-devel@d.o. have shown, there is more than one interpretation of DFSG §2. So stating in a policy for this team how team members must interpret Debian Policy is indeed more strict than Debian generally. I dearly appreciate your efforts trying to get this clarified, but believe Policy should be defined in Debian generally, not here specifically. I prefer that for this team we do not dictate, only recommend best practices. Or do we really want to have this debate started again for each new package asking the team to be reviewed? I believe we need not have same debate for each new package, if we document what we (or most of us) find to be best practices. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature ___ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] JS policy: repackaging upstream tarball when minified js files are present (was: Call for review: should.js packages)
2014-05-05 21:31 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk: Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 20:57:39) 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. As recent discussions (not so much here but) at debian-devel@d.o. have shown, there is more than one interpretation of DFSG §2. So stating in a policy for this team how team members must interpret Debian Policy is indeed more strict than Debian generally. I dearly appreciate your efforts trying to get this clarified, but believe Policy should be defined in Debian generally, not here specifically. I prefer that for this team we do not dictate, only recommend best practices. Or do we really want to have this debate started again for each new package asking the team to be reviewed? I believe we need not have same debate for each new package, if we document what we (or most of us) find to be best practices. What is your suggestion for documenting that? +Emilien ___ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] JS policy: repackaging upstream tarball when minified js files are present (was: Call for review: should.js packages)
Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 23:35:34) 2014-05-05 21:31 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk: Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 20:57:39) Or do we really want to have this debate started again for each new package asking the team to be reviewed? I believe we need not have same debate for each new package, if we document what we (or most of us) find to be best practices. What is your suggestion for documenting that? Somewhere below https://wiki.debian.org/Javascript. If calling the page Policy implies strict rules, then I would prefer not writing it there but instead at e.g. Guidelines or BestPractices. What do others think? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature ___ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] JS policy: repackaging upstream tarball when minified js files are present (was: Call for review: should.js packages)
Le mardi 06 mai 2014 à 02:57 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 23:35:34) 2014-05-05 21:31 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk: Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 20:57:39) Or do we really want to have this debate started again for each new package asking the team to be reviewed? I believe we need not have same debate for each new package, if we document what we (or most of us) find to be best practices. What is your suggestion for documenting that? Somewhere below https://wiki.debian.org/Javascript. If calling the page Policy implies strict rules, then I would prefer not writing it there but instead at e.g. Guidelines or BestPractices. What do others think? That it's correct. Jérémy. ___ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] JS policy: repackaging upstream tarball when minified js files are present (was: Call for review: should.js packages)
No other comments from the team on Jérémy's proposal? +Emilien 2014-04-25 23:49 GMT+02:00 Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org: Le vendredi 25 avril 2014 à 23:34 +0200, Emilien Klein a écrit : 2014-04-24 18:34 GMT+02:00 Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org: The conclusion coming out of these dicussions could also go in developers reference or best packaging practices ? Makes sense. Please fix this (badly formulated) proposal: Strict application of DFSG requires files generated from source in upstream tarball to be excluded excluded from what would be the question. How can we make explicit that it must be removed from the upstream tarball? i meant excluded from upstream tarball, which seems to be the safest solution (correct me if i'm wrong). , unless it is possible to regenerate the files and prove they are identical to the ones in the tarball. Minified files and browserified files What's a browserified file? I'm not familiar with that term. It (automatically) transforms a script and the modules it requires into a single file that can be used in a browser. The built file is often distributed in the upstream tarball. are examples of such files that could be excluded for that reason. A convenient way to achieve this is to use debian/copyright Files-Excluded field, see https://wiki.debian.org/UscanEnhancements. +Emilien ___ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel ___ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] JS policy: repackaging upstream tarball when minified js files are present (was: Call for review: should.js packages)
Le 5 mai 2014 00:13, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk a écrit : Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-04 23:31:51) No other comments from the team on Jérémy's proposal? Evidently ;-) Who can upload that to our policy page, so that we can point new team members to it instead of starting the debate each time again? +Emilien Please don't top-post. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private ___ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel ___ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] JS policy: repackaging upstream tarball when minified js files are present (was: Call for review: should.js packages)
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. --dkg signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] JS policy: repackaging upstream tarball when minified js files are present (was: Call for review: should.js packages)
Le lundi 05 mai 2014 à 00:28 +0200, Emilien Klein a écrit : Le 5 mai 2014 00:13, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk a écrit : Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-04 23:31:51) No other comments from the team on Jérémy's proposal? Evidently ;-) Who can upload that to our policy page, so that we can point new team members to it instead of starting the debate each time again? Technically it's just editing the wiki. Leo ? ___ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] JS policy: repackaging upstream tarball when minified js files are present (was: Call for review: should.js packages)
2014-04-24 18:34 GMT+02:00 Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org: The conclusion coming out of these dicussions could also go in developers reference or best packaging practices ? Makes sense. Please fix this (badly formulated) proposal: Strict application of DFSG requires files generated from source in upstream tarball to be excluded excluded from what would be the question. How can we make explicit that it must be removed from the upstream tarball? , unless it is possible to regenerate the files and prove they are identical to the ones in the tarball. Minified files and browserified files What's a browserified file? I'm not familiar with that term. are examples of such files that could be excluded for that reason. A convenient way to achieve this is to use debian/copyright Files-Excluded field, see https://wiki.debian.org/UscanEnhancements. +Emilien ___ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] JS policy: repackaging upstream tarball when minified js files are present (was: Call for review: should.js packages)
Le vendredi 25 avril 2014 à 23:34 +0200, Emilien Klein a écrit : 2014-04-24 18:34 GMT+02:00 Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org: The conclusion coming out of these dicussions could also go in developers reference or best packaging practices ? Makes sense. Please fix this (badly formulated) proposal: Strict application of DFSG requires files generated from source in upstream tarball to be excluded excluded from what would be the question. How can we make explicit that it must be removed from the upstream tarball? i meant excluded from upstream tarball, which seems to be the safest solution (correct me if i'm wrong). , unless it is possible to regenerate the files and prove they are identical to the ones in the tarball. Minified files and browserified files What's a browserified file? I'm not familiar with that term. It (automatically) transforms a script and the modules it requires into a single file that can be used in a browser. The built file is often distributed in the upstream tarball. are examples of such files that could be excluded for that reason. A convenient way to achieve this is to use debian/copyright Files-Excluded field, see https://wiki.debian.org/UscanEnhancements. +Emilien ___ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel ___ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
[Pkg-javascript-devel] JS policy: repackaging upstream tarball when minified js files are present (was: Call for review: should.js packages)
Hi David and team, 2014-04-23 23:17 GMT+02:00 David Prévot da...@tilapin.org: Hi, - Regarding your latest commit 719083c do not install should.min.js - agreed with debian-js team: this is a long discussion, the short version is that you should repackage the upstream tarball to remove the included .min.js file Even if some people sounds attached to repack packages just to be on a alleged safe-side of their own reading of the DFSG, that statement still violates the developers reference (添ou *should* upload packages with a pristine source tarball if possible納0]), and doesn稚 add any value to the package. It sounds weird to enforce such view inside the JavaScript team while it痴 not enforced for other kinds of binaries distributed in the archive as part of source packages. 0: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#repackagedorigtargz David, as you know we had this debate last month. I am also in favor of not having to repackage when minified files are present in the upstream tarball, but the current policy is that it has to be done. I am just making sure that we apply the same rules consistently: I've had to update my jquery-lazyload package, and François-Régis also updated jquery-coolfieldset. On defense of the current policy, it bases itself on a reading of the DFSG which is a stronger document than the Developer's Reference. I only see 2 options possible: - You continue the discussion where I stopped [1], and bring this issue in a constructive way to other developers outside of our team to get their input as well - We enforce the current team policy for all packages maintained by the Javascript team. This includes making the policy clear on our policy page [2] (asking again: who can do that?) and we audit all current team-maintained packages to see if any is currently keeping the minified files. +Emilien [1] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/2014-March/007258.html [2] https://wiki.debian.org/Javascript/Policy ___ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
