Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

"Joseph R. Justice" writes: > To all: Should Mr's Raboud's request for interpretation be expanded to > include clarification on whether, and if so when and how, the TC can > require some other delegate to take a particular action or actions, This mail seems to be prompted

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

]] "Joseph R. Justice" > For the record for this bug / discussion: > > I note Didier 'OdyX' Raboud 's mail to the Debian Secretary, CC'd to > the TC list and the FTP Master list, requesting a general > interpretation of the TC's ability (if any) to override the decisions > made by various

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

For the record for this bug / discussion: I note Didier 'OdyX' Raboud 's mail to the Debian Secretary, CC'd to the TC list and the FTP Master list, requesting a general interpretation of the TC's ability (if any) to override the decisions made by various Debian delegate teams and individuals. A

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

Adrian Bunk writes: > Only DFSG-free packages that depend on non-free software are allowed > in contrib. At Debconf in Heidelberg, this definition was tweaked somewhat by inspiration of the sitting DPL in light of the ZFS discussion to include software which itself is free, but

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

Adrian Bunk writes: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 09:48:02AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: >> ❦ 5 octobre 2016 22:49 CEST, Philip Hands  : >> >> > If you fancy explaining what you think browserified means w.r.t. the >> > Jison stuff, go ahead of course. That might

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

❦ 6 octobre 2016 20:47 CEST, Adrian Bunk  : >> > If you fancy explaining what you think browserified means w.r.t. the >> > Jison stuff, go ahead of course. That might at least help to focus the >> > discussion a bit. Just don't feel obliged to because I said so. >> >> The

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 09:48:02AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 5 octobre 2016 22:49 CEST, Philip Hands  : > > > If you fancy explaining what you think browserified means w.r.t. the > > Jison stuff, go ahead of course. That might at least help to focus the > > discussion a

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

]] Adrian Bunk > Where you placed the dots policy says: > > Every package in _contrib_ must comply with the DFSG. Yes, so you put the source in the source package. Job done. I haven't checked the licenses of the various packages, but AIUI, that's not the problem. The problem is that

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 07:48:28PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] Adrian Bunk > > > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 07:26:06PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > >... > > > I think it'd be preferable for the software to be in contrib (AFAIK > > > there's nothing here which is non-free?) > > >... > >

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

]] Adrian Bunk > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 07:26:06PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > >... > > I think it'd be preferable for the software to be in contrib (AFAIK > > there's nothing here which is non-free?) > >... > > When a package is not DFSG-free it is non-free. > > Only DFSG-free packages

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 07:26:06PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: >... > I think it'd be preferable for the software to be in contrib (AFAIK > there's nothing here which is non-free?) >... When a package is not DFSG-free it is non-free. Only DFSG-free packages that depend on non-free software are

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

]] "Joseph R. Justice" > I'll be honest, I assumed from what I've read that a decision had > already been made by the FTP team against Mr. Praveen. I figured that > it must have been, or else why would he be raising this bug with the > TC now? It's not clear that it has, which is one of the

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

]] Joseph R. Justice > Is there any information yet on what formal policy (if any) will be > used by the release managers for allowing bugs to be tagged > stretch-ignore? *Was* there any formal policy ever set in place for > the prior (the current stable) release of Debian, e.g. Jessie, or >

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 02:23:37PM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: >... > All of the above are imperfections (yes, bugs) in how src:firefox handles its > internal sqlite3.c code copy. In an ideal world: > > * src:sqlite3 would provide sqlite3.c in a binary package (sqlite3-static ?) > *

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 11:48:36AM +0200, Philip Hands wrote: >... > The security team are going to have to track down every instance of that > code and fix it. If the bug is something to do with an interaction > between the code and the tools used to "browserifiy" the code, that may be >

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

Le jeudi, 6 octobre 2016, 14.38:21 h CEST Adrian Bunk a écrit : > I am not sure whether this has been filed as a bug in any affected > package, but src:sqlite3 is not affected. > > The problem is the amalgamation in other packages, for example: >

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 10:43:00AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 > (reopening)"): > > Perl's Configure or SQLite are other examples of code with similar > > issues currently in Debian, and it woul

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 01:13:16AM -0400, Joseph R. Justice wrote: > For the record, I wish the message I am now responding to, and other > subsequent responses and discussion, were being sent to the bug mail > address *in addition to* all the other addresses they're being sent to. >... For the

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

Philip Hands writes ("Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)"): > I'm just writing as an individual here BTW, but I'll obviously carry > these views into any discussion that the TC might have about this. Phil, thanks for that excellent contribution. Thank

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

"Joseph R. Justice" writes: >> Here are some factors to consider: >> >> 1) It's not clear to several TC members that the FTP team has decided >> on this question. It seems fairly clear how they would decide if they >> did decide, but from a process standpoint, it's

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Pirate Praveen wrote: A quick update, I have asked ftp masters to make a ruling on the issue. > #839801. > Forgot to mention in my other response to this message... Should this bug (839570) depend on the FTPmaster ruling request bug

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] "Joseph R. Justice" > > > Could the TC offer guidance, or issue a statement, on if (and if so > > when) it should ever be permissible to allow a waiver from RC-bug > > status for software whose source code is available

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Pa irate Praveen wrote: > On 2016, ഒക്‌ടോബർ 4 7:49:28 PM IST, Sam Hartman > wrote: > > >You're asking questions that don't make sense from a p.process > >standpoint, doing things that have a very low probability of

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

For the record, I wish the message I am now responding to, and other subsequent responses and discussion, were being sent to the bug mail address *in addition to* all the other addresses they're being sent to. I am choosing to send my response here to the bug mail address, at least in part so

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

]] "Joseph R. Justice" > Could the TC offer guidance, or issue a statement, on if (and if so > when) it should ever be permissible to allow a waiver from RC-bug > status for software whose source code is available but determined to > be insufficiently free for the DFSG while active efforts are

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Sam Hartman wrote: First off, I would like to, sincerely and truly, thank you for responding to my message. I'd been wondering if maybe they were going into a black hole of some sort. You give me some reassurance that they are not, or at

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Didier" == Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes: > I do think there are things we could do in this space. > We could set policy consistent with the DFSG on what the definition of > source code in Debian

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Would the following ballot be a better fit ? > == > C: Decline to rule on #830978 'Browserified javascript and DFSG 2' > FD: Further Discussion > == > I'd like to state again that, if you (the TC as a body) choose not

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

[I realize there have been several messages subsequent to this, but I'm working down the list in order of presentation by the GMail web interface.] On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:13 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > Le dimanche, 2 octobre 2016, 14.29:49 h CEST Pirate Praveen a écrit

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

> "Sam" == Sam Hartman writes: Sam> Obviously, there's a level at which I agree with you. When Sam> this came around last time, I wanted us to issue advice. This was something I intended to send to Ian privately, not to the bug. Apologies for the spam and for

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

Obviously, there's a level at which I agree with you. When this came around last time, I wanted us to issue advice. The advice I wanted to issue isn't the advice you wished we issued, but it would have at least been advice. However, I was the only one on the TC who wanted to touch the issue. It

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes ("Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)"): > Would the following ballot be a better fit ? > == > C: Decline to rule on #830978 'Browserified javascript and DFSG 2' > FD: Further Discussion > == I think this would be an

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

On 2016, ഒക്‌ടോബർ 4 7:49:28 PM IST, Sam Hartman wrote: >You're asking questions that don't make sense from a p.process >standpoint, doing things that have a very low probability of making >anyone happy, A quick update, I have asked ftp masters to make a ruling on the issue.

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

Dear joseph: This message will be hurried: I'm on a train and approaching my stop. Thanks for your detailed message. I don't agree with all of it, but I find it a lot easier to interact with than some of the requests we've gotten related to this issue. Here are some factors to consider: 1)

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

Dear Pirate: I hear that you're fairly frustrated by the response you're getting from the TC. Speaking as someone who has read extensively the earlier bug log, I think that your cause would be advanced by getting an additional primary advocate who has a better understanding of what the TC can

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

> "Didier" == Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes: Again, I'm fine with your current ballot. As stated, I don't think the TC should (and am skeptical of can) decide on the DFSG-freeness of a package directly. We could mediate, but it's clear we don't want to here. I do think there

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

Le mardi, 4 octobre 2016, 07.12:24 h CEST Sam Hartman a écrit : > I'd be willing to vote on the ballot you propose. > I disagree with your rationale for why this bug is not for the TC to > decide. Good. Can you outline shortly why ? > But I agree that this bug is not for the TC to decide at this

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

I'd be willing to vote on the ballot you propose. I disagree with your rationale for why this bug is not for the TC to decide. But I agree that this bug is not for the TC to decide at this time. So, if that's all we're voting on, and I don't need to agree with your rationale to vote C, I'm fine

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

Le dimanche, 2 octobre 2016, 14.29:49 h CEST Pirate Praveen a écrit : > package: tech-ctte > > Following up on #830978. I would like this to be reopened and request > CTTE make a formal vote. The discussion that lead to closing #830978 happened on IRC [0] , see the full log from line 172 [1] ,

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

On 2016, ഒക്‌ടോബർ 4 4:16:48 AM IST, Philip Hands wrote: >I think you need to try a little harder than that -- it is still >unclear >to me what you are even attempting to ask for. Unless that changes I >would think that the right response to this is to simply close the bug.

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Philip Hands wrote: > Pirate Praveen writes: > > On 2016, ഒക്‌ടോബർ 3 8:22:20 AM IST, "Joseph R. Justice" < > jayare...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>If I have misunderstood in any way Mr. Praveen's position, or if I have >

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

Pirate Praveen writes: > On 2016, ഒക്‌ടോബർ 3 8:22:20 AM IST, "Joseph R. Justice" > wrote: >>If I have misunderstood in any way Mr. Praveen's position, or if I have >>misrepresented in any fashion whatsoever what it is he is trying to >>express, then I

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

On 2016, ഒക്‌ടോബർ 3 8:22:20 AM IST, "Joseph R. Justice" wrote: >If I have misunderstood in any way Mr. Praveen's position, or if I have >misrepresented in any fashion whatsoever what it is he is trying to >express, then I sincerely apologize for my error. > >Otherwise...

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

[FWIW: I am not a Debian Developer. I am not a Debian Maintainer. I am not someone who (currently) uses Debian (tho I subscribe to some of the mailing lists), nor uses the software being discussed or referred to within this bug. I don't have a horse in this race. I do, however, have Male

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

]] Pirate Praveen > Following up on #830978. I would like this to be reopened and request > CTTE make a formal vote. What is the exact question you're trying to get us to answer? Are you asking us for advice, are you asking us to overrule a developer or something else? -- Tollef Fog Heen

Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

package: tech-ctte Following up on #830978. I would like this to be reopened and request CTTE make a formal vote. Because, every major web based software will have to be moved to contrib because its likely at least one of the javascript dependencies are in browserified form. 1. Diaspora is