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

2016-10-20 Thread Vincent Bernat
❦ 20 octobre 2016 10:08 +0200, Philip Hands  : Please describe the relevant differences between browserified javascript and perl that make the TC believe that the former has a DFSG issue but the latter probably has not, in a way that I can deduct what the TC

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

2016-10-20 Thread Philip Hands
Vincent Bernat writes: > [ Unknown signature status ] > ❦ 18 octobre 2016 23:01 +0200, Florian Weimer  : > I think it's clear that the TC believes that this package is not DFSG free. I think it's clear that the TC believes perl would be

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

2016-10-19 Thread Vincent Bernat
❦ 18 octobre 2016 23:01 +0200, Florian Weimer  : >>> I think it's clear that the TC believes that this package is not DFSG >>> free. >>> I think it's clear that the TC believes perl would be better if the >>> situation was improved. >>> I thought it was clear we believed perl

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

2016-10-18 Thread Florian Weimer
* Adrian Bunk: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:00:53AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: >>... >> I think it's clear that the TC believes that this package is not DFSG >> free. >> I think it's clear that the TC believes perl would be better if the >> situation was improved. >> I thought it was clear we

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

2016-10-07 Thread Philip Hands
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

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

2016-10-06 Thread Vincent Bernat
❦ 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

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

2016-10-06 Thread Adrian Bunk
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

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

2016-10-06 Thread Adrian Bunk
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 ?) > *

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

2016-10-06 Thread Adrian Bunk
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

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

2016-10-06 Thread Adrian Bunk
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

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

2016-10-06 Thread Ian Jackson
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 would be helpful if the TC would > start by gathering an overview of the diff

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

2016-10-06 Thread Vincent Bernat
❦ 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 bit. Just don't feel obliged to because I said so. The libjs-handlebars

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

2016-10-05 Thread Joseph R. Justice
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

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

2016-10-05 Thread Philip Hands
Philip Hands writes: > Praveen, please respond to #830986 Actually, I withdraw that request -- I doubt replying there is going to be a productive use of your time, and is probably not going to improve your chances of getting what you want either. If you fancy explaining what

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

2016-10-05 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 08:21:40PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote: > Adrian Bunk writes: > > > Why are TC members complaining that they do not even properly understand > > what "browserified" means, instead of using the power to give advice to > > structure the discussion? > >

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

2016-10-05 Thread Philip Hands
Adrian Bunk writes: > Why are TC members complaining that they do not even properly understand > what "browserified" means, instead of using the power to give advice to > structure the discussion? Probably because without a response to #830986, "browserified" either means

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

2016-10-05 Thread gregor herrmann
On Wed, 05 Oct 2016 19:10:35 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > The TC is clearly not too busy, just too lazy. I find your recent mails quite aggressive which makes them unpleasant to read for me. Please try to change your tone a bit. Cheers, gregor Cheers, gregor -- .''`. Homepage

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

2016-10-05 Thread Sam Hartman
> "Don" == Don Armstrong writes: Don> I don't believe there is anyone on the TC who is arguing that Don> perl doesn't (or at least didn't) have a DFSG issue.[1] Don> We merely believe the TC does not have the power to make a Don> decision for the ftpmasters

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

2016-10-05 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:06:57AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Wed, 05 Oct 2016, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Please describe the relevant differences between browserified > > javascript and perl that make the TC believe that the former has a > > DFSG issue but the latter probably has not, in a way

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

2016-10-05 Thread Don Armstrong
On Wed, 05 Oct 2016, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Please describe the relevant differences between browserified > javascript and perl that make the TC believe that the former has a > DFSG issue but the latter probably has not, in a way that I can deduct > what the TC would believe regarding the similiar

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

2016-10-05 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:00:53AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: >... > I think it's clear that the TC believes that this package is not DFSG > free. > I think it's clear that the TC believes perl would be better if the > situation was improved. > I thought it was clear we believed perl had a DFSG

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

2016-10-05 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 12:59:36PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: >... > I think the TC has many reasonable options. > > * You could say that you think you aren't authorised, by the >constitution, to overrule a decision on DFSG-ness, and invite the >petitioners to consider a GR. In any case

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

2016-10-04 Thread Sam Hartman
> "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk writes: Adrian> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:54:55PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: >> > "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk writes: >> Adrian> In other words, the best way forward for getting any Adrian> decision would be an

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

2016-10-04 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:54:55PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk writes: > > Adrian> In other words, the best way forward for getting any > Adrian> decision would be an RC bug against perl claiming that the > Adrian> Configure script is not

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

2016-10-04 Thread Sam Hartman
> "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk writes: Adrian> In other words, the best way forward for getting any Adrian> decision would be an RC bug against perl claiming that the Adrian> Configure script is not DFSG-free. This RC bug was filed, and I think everyone involved

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

2016-10-04 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 10:30:01AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: >... > 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,