Re: Depends: hicolor-icon-theme: shouldn't it be Recommends: instead?

> Simon McVittie writes: […] > hicolor-icon-theme is really the infrastructure for a theme, rather > than *being* a theme: it does not contain any icons of its own. It > represents the fallback icon theme for all desktops that use > freedesktop.org themes (GNOME, KDE, XFCE, etc.). The

Re: Priority field of xz-utils package

Le Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 07:23:37PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder a écrit : > > Ever since dpkg started using liblzma directly (dpkg 1.16.4), the xz > command is no longer needed in a minimal Debian system. Based on its > list of reverse-dependencies, it would presumably even be safe to > lower its prior

Priority field of xz-utils package

(please direct replies to debian-devel only) Ever since dpkg started using liblzma directly (dpkg 1.16.4), the xz command is no longer needed in a minimal Debian system. Based on its list of reverse-dependencies, it would presumably even be safe to lower its priority to optional. I think "standa

Re: Minified javascript files

Le Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 01:19:05PM +0800, Thomas Goirand a écrit : > On 08/17/2012 01:24 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote: > > 3. Repacking the original tarball just to remove those files is extra > > work. > > > Yeah, just annoying everyone for a minified jquery in upstream > tarball is, to me, a

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source (Was: Minified javascript files)

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 00:55:15 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > > > > I admit I'm not very experienced with Perl and reading RFC822 files - > > > > so if somebody would help implementing this I'd be glad. > Might be a job for Debian::Copyright, packaged as > libdebian-copyright-perl. > > Cheers, >

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:12:49 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > So we finally have three independently developed solutions (we also have > > > several instances of a debian/get-orig-source script in Debian Med > > > team) and > > pkg-perl variant: > > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-perl/s

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source (Was: Minified javascript files)

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 00:36:05 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:03:27PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > I admit I'm not very experienced with Perl and reading RFC822 files - > > > so if somebody would help implementing this I'd be glad. > > > > grep-dctrl -FFormat -n

Re: Minified javascript files

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 07:50:39PM +, Sam Morris wrote: > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:43:51 +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:03:23PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > >> > So yes, we have the problem for precompiled windows DLLs in a source > >> > package. > >> > >>

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source (Was: Minified javascript files)

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:03:27PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > I admit I'm not very experienced with Perl and reading RFC822 files - > > so if somebody would help implementing this I'd be glad. > > grep-dctrl -FFormat -n -sFiles-Excluded \ > http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source (Was: Minified javascript files)

On 12-08-17 at 10:18pm, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 07:41:01PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > > >Thanks. That bug is about it _both_ being required by Debian > > >Policy to document in debian/copyright and it _also_ being > > >documented in developers reference that such info shou

Re: Minified javascript files

* Pau Garcia i Quiles , 2012-08-17, 22:35: http://lintian.debian.org/tags/source-contains-prebuilt-windows-binary.html This includes: tcltrf (source) * win/msvcrt.dll This is part of Windows. I don't expect Debian has been granted permission to distribute it. :) Are you sure it's not wine's

Re: Minified javascript files

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 22:35:07 +0200, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Sam Morris wrote: > > So yes, we have the problem for precompiled windows DLLs in a > source package. Interesting, that issue seems rather common. Maybe a lintian check cou

Re: Minified javascript files

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Sam Morris wrote: >>> > So yes, we have the problem for precompiled windows DLLs in a source >>> > package. >>> >>> Interesting, that issue seems rather common. Maybe a lintian check >>> could alarm packagers of this? >> http://lintian.debian.org/tags/source-cont

Re: Minified javascript files

Hi, On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Luca Falavigna wrote: > 2012/8/17 Bernd Zeimetz : > > But it usually does and also results in a source tarball which is > > missing essential pieces of the software, so people who download it for > > non-Debian usage will fail to run the shipped source just because we > >

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source (Was: Minified javascript files)

Hi, On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 07:41:01PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > >Thanks. That bug is about it _both_ being required by Debian > >Policy to document in debian/copyright and it _also_ being > >documented in developers reference that such info should be in > >README.Source. > > FWIW, it's the oth

Re: Minified javascript files

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:43:51 +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:03:23PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> > So yes, we have the problem for precompiled windows DLLs in a source >> > package. >> >> Interesting, that issue seems rather common. Maybe a lintian check >> cou

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source

]] Pau Garcia i Quiles > It's not a matter of using a better or worse script, having dpkg, or > uupdate, or some other tool do that for us. It's a matter of > repackaging. It's a matter of altering upstream's package for (IMHO) > no good reason. It's a matter of breaking user confidence: users ar

Re: Minified javascript files

On 12-08-17 at 07:19pm, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 17 août 2012 09:39 CEST, Jakub Wilk  : > > [0] “The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be > > included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.” > > That's true that the permission notice is not included in the

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source (Was: Minified javascript files)

* Jonas Smedegaard , 2012-08-17, 19:27: It is already required (or only recommended?) to document in debian/copyright when source has been altered, See bug #561494. Thanks. That bug is about it _both_ being required by Debian Policy to document in debian/copyright and it _also_ being documente

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source (Was: Minified javascript files)

On 12-08-17 at 05:17pm, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Jonas Smedegaard , 2012-08-17, 16:38: > >It is already required (or only recommended?) to document in > >debian/copyright when source has been altered, > > See bug #561494. Thanks. That bug is about it _both_ being required by Debian Policy to docum

Re: Minified javascript files

❦ 17 août 2012 09:39 CEST, Jakub Wilk  : >> 1. The license allows redistribution and modification of the >> minified version without having the sources. Therefore, we are only >> dealing with DFSG here. > > While jQuery license is permissive, it does impose certain > conditions[0] on distributors

Re: Depends: hicolor-icon-theme: shouldn't it be Recommends: instead?

On 17/08/12 10:07, Ivan Shmakov wrote: > Unsurprisingly, all of them were able to install and run, but > while openteacher is seemingly unaffected by the absence of the > data in question, the rest have had obvious issues: almost all > of the icons were absent, resulting in

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source (Was: Minified javascript files)

* Jonas Smedegaard , 2012-08-17, 16:38: It is already required (or only recommended?) to document in debian/copyright when source has been altered, See bug #561494. -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source (Was: Minified javascript files)

On 12-08-17 at 02:12pm, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi Gregor, > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 01:47:48PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:08:39 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > > > So we finally have three independently developed solutions (we also have > > > several instances of

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source (Was: Minified javascript files)

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 03:12:02PM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > I like this > > Please add a flag for specifying recompression method Noted. On the other hand I wonder whether this should be separated from the removal issue because we currently just do have a --repack option and I think thi

Re: Minified javascript files

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > Le vendredi, 17 août 2012 14.03:38, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : >> Maybe we should fix DFSG #2 to say “The program must include source code >> for all the files that gets installed in the Debian binary packages [...]“. > > With this modi

Re: Minified javascript files

2012/8/17 Andreas Tille : >http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/08/msg00397.html > and do you agree that a (enhanced) uscan could be this tool? Sounds good for the majority of the cases, I don't think there are too many repacked sources in the archive for which it's impossible to provide

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source (Was: Minified javascript files)

Le 17 août 2012 14:15, "Andreas Tille" a écrit : > > Hi Gregor, > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 01:47:48PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:08:39 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > > > So we finally have three independently developed solutions (we also have > > > several instanc

Re: Minified javascript files

Hi Luca, On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 03:01:12PM +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote: > 2012/8/17 Jakub Wilk : > > Part of the problem is that we lack good tools to do this extra work for us. > > Really, repacking shouldn't be a tedious operation, it shouldn't take more > > than 5 seconds, it shouldn't require

Re: Minified javascript files

2012/8/17 Bernd Zeimetz : > But it usually does and also results in a source tarball which is > missing essential pieces of the software, so people who download it for > non-Debian usage will fail to run the shipped source just because we > removed an otherwise free piece of software. This does no

Re: Minified javascript files

2012/8/17 Jakub Wilk : > Part of the problem is that we lack good tools to do this extra work for us. > Really, repacking shouldn't be a tedious operation, it shouldn't take more > than 5 seconds, it shouldn't require writing two dozens lines of code and > documentation. :( ACK. Should we write a

Re: Minified javascript files

Le vendredi, 17 août 2012 14.03:38, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : > Maybe we should fix DFSG #2 to say “The program must include source code > for all the files that gets installed in the Debian binary packages [...]“. With this modification, upstream might then include (distributable) win32 executab

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source (Was: Minified javascript files)

Hi Gregor, On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 01:47:48PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:08:39 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > So we finally have three independently developed solutions (we also have > > several instances of a debian/get-orig-source script in Debian Med > > team) an

Re: Minified javascript files

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote: > Given that I'm not using upstream's jquery.min.js at all, I wonder why > I should repackage the source package. I agree with you that it's useless work. But the ftpmasters believe that Debian is made of source and binary packages and that the conte

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source (Was: Minified javascript files)

Hi, On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 01:55:23PM +0200, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:26:49PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > >> > > > As an unrelated idea which popped up when reading this: Do you > >> > > > think it

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source (Was: Minified javascript files)

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:26:49PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: >> > > > As an unrelated idea which popped up when reading this: Do you think >> > > > it >> > > > would be a sensible enhancement to uupdate if it could deal with a list >> > > >

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source (Was: Minified javascript files)

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:08:39 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > So we finally have three independently developed solutions (we also have > several instances of a debian/get-orig-source script in Debian Med > team) and pkg-perl variant: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-perl/scripts.git;a=tree r

Re: Minified javascript files

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote: > 3) Make a new source package containing every jQuery version existing in the > wild, then build depend on that. FTP Masters do not like that solution. Vincent's question was due to FTP masters complaining about the package 'witty', which I ma

Re: Minified javascript files

* Bernd Zeimetz , 2012-08-17, 10:53: 3. Repacking the original tarball just to remove those files is extra work. Part of the problem is that we lack good tools to do this extra work for us. Really, repacking shouldn't be a tedious operation, it shouldn't take more than 5 seconds, it shouldn't

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source (Was: Minified javascript files)

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:26:49PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > As an unrelated idea which popped up when reading this: Do you think it > > > > would be a sensible enhancement to uupdate if it could deal with a list > > > > of files (wildcard strings that could be feed to `rm -rf`) which shou

Re: Minified javascript files

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:03:23PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > > So yes, we have the problem for precompiled windows DLLs in a source > > package. > > Interesting, that issue seems rather common. Maybe a lintian check > could alarm packagers of this? http://lintian.debian.org/tags/source-cont

Re: Minified javascript files

Thomas Goirand writes: > On 08/17/2012 09:40 AM, Paul Wise wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote: >> >> >>> What I didn't know until recently is that the minified version in the >>> source package should be removed (or the appropriate full version should >>> be append

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source (Was: Minified javascript files)

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:23:56PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:55:02AM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote: > > Andreas Tille wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 09:39:05AM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > > > > Part of the problem is that we lack good tools to do this extra work > >

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source (Was: Minified javascript files)

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:55:02AM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote: > Andreas Tille wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 09:39:05AM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > > > Part of the problem is that we lack good tools to do this extra work > > > for us. > > > > As an unrelated idea which popped up when reading

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source (Was: Minified javascript files)

Andreas Tille wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 09:39:05AM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > > Part of the problem is that we lack good tools to do this extra work > > for us. > > As an unrelated idea which popped up when reading this: Do you think it > would be a sensible enhancement to uupdate if it c

Re: Minified javascript files

Hi there! On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:53:09 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > On 08/17/2012 09:39 AM, Jakub Wilk wrote: >> * Vincent Bernat , 2012-08-16, 19:24: >>> 3. Repacking the original tarball just to remove those files is extra >>> work. >> >> Part of the problem is that we lack good tools to do t

Re: Depends: hicolor-icon-theme: shouldn't it be Recommends: instead?

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Ivan Shmakov wrote: > Abstract > > The non-data packages currently having an absolute dependency on > hicolor-icon-theme should consider downgrading it to Recommends: > at the least. The list, and the explanation, are below. > > > Chap

Depends: hicolor-icon-theme: shouldn't it be Recommends: instead?

Abstract The non-data packages currently having an absolute dependency on hicolor-icon-theme should consider downgrading it to Recommends: at the least. The list, and the explanation, are below. Chapter I imagemagick Recently, Depends: hicolor-icon-theme w

Re: Minified javascript files

On 08/17/2012 09:40 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote: > > >> What I didn't know until recently is that the minified version in the >> source package should be removed (or the appropriate full version should >> be appended). >> > Do we also require

Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source (Was: Minified javascript files)

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 09:39:05AM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > Part of the problem is that we lack good tools to do this extra work > for us. As an unrelated idea which popped up when reading this: Do you think it would be a sensible enhancement to uupdate if it could deal with a list of files (w

Re: Minified javascript files

On 08/17/2012 09:39 AM, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Vincent Bernat , 2012-08-16, 19:24: >> 1. The license allows redistribution and modification of the minified >> version without having the sources. Therefore, we are only dealing >> with DFSG here. > > While jQuery license is permissive, it does impose

Re: Change default PATH for Jessie / wheezy+1

On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 12:40:42PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > Warning the user that they are using an obsolete tool is IMO entirely > justified, particularly when there is a much better and more capable > replacement. And there's plenty of precedent: $ ffmpeg ffmpeg version 0.8.3-6:0.

Re: Change default PATH for Jessie / wheezy+1

On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 04:41:35AM +0200, Ulrich Dangel wrote: > On 08/08/12 04:11, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > Fedora did it a few months ago, so probably we should do it as well to > > minimize the pain. > > As far as I know (based on > / > http

Re: Minified javascript files

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 08:59:55PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Aug 16, Vincent Bernat wrote: > > > I know this is tedious but what others think about this matter? > This is another case in which the DFSG has become a religion to be > followed in a literalist interpretation instead of a tool

Re: Bug#685064: ITP: non-daw -- please package non-things

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:19:23AM +0200, rosea grammostolla wrote: > Subject: Re: Bug#685064: ITP: non-daw -- please package non-things ^ You've filed an ITP (I Intent To Package) but your subject reads more like a Request For som

Re: Minified javascript files

* Vincent Bernat , 2012-08-16, 19:24: 1. The license allows redistribution and modification of the minified version without having the sources. Therefore, we are only dealing with DFSG here. While jQuery license is permissive, it does impose certain conditions[0] on distributors. In my experi