On 2014-03-26 02:49, Paul Wise wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
To be honest I'd rather like to see a ruling which is codified in a
policy
than random guesswork we do on -devel from observing FTP masters'
actions.
This is not Mao.
Figuring out what the source is
On 2014-03-24 17:23, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
I don’t have the source of it at hand (and IANAftpmaster), but
right now, the answer is NO because the promise of the DFSG and
surrounding documents also extends to not just the source pak-
kages but also the distfiles (*.orig.tar.*) isolated.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:16:12PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
To be honest I'd rather like to see a ruling which is codified in
a policy than random guesswork we do on -devel from observing FTP
masters' actions. This is not Mao.
There was an ftpteam meeting last week, and this was discussed. I
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
To be honest I'd rather like to see a ruling which is codified in a policy
than random guesswork we do on -devel from observing FTP masters' actions.
This is not Mao.
Figuring out what the source is and where it is can be hard, even for
Joachim Breitner nomeata at debian.org writes:
Before this thread gets too long and we hear too many opinion from
people don’t have a say in this (like me), I’d like to hear an official
statement from the ftp-team on the question:
Does Debian tolerate files in upstream tarballs
Joachim Breitner nomeata at debian.org writes:
The minified file contains a copyright header, and the license is MIT,
so I believe shipping jquery-1.11.0.min.js without query-1.11.0.js is
It’s legal, but it’s not allowed because it breaks the *promise* we
(Debian) do to our users/downstreams.
]] Russ Allbery
Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi writes:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 01:20:20AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Actually, if we really want to strictly +literally interpret the DFSG,
then yes, tarballs (or the directory trees they represent) are no
longer the preferred form of
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 01:20:20AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Actually, if we really want to strictly +literally interpret the DFSG,
then yes, tarballs (or the directory trees they represent) are no longer
the preferred form of modification when everybody uses a DVCS like git.
I don't
On 03/18/2014 01:20, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Scott Kitterman:
Oh. So you think to meet the DFSG we need to provide a copy of the VCS
repository since the tarball isn't the preferred form of modification?
Actually, if we really want to strictly +literally interpret the DFSG,
then yes,
* Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org, 2014-03-15, 14:09:
In 20120817111437.ga8...@jwilk.net I suggested making a package that
would bundle all the needed sources, but my proposal wasn't met with
enthusiasm.
I think it's a good idea, however, instead of packaging all version
possible, would it be
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 09:57:50PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
That would work only if the embedded copy was the same version as
the packaged one. And there are lots of jQuery versions in the wild.
In 20120817111437.ga8...@jwilk.net I suggested making a package
that would bundle all the needed
[ Lars just covered some of this in another part of the thread, but as
I had this drafted already, I'm sending it anyway. ]
On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 14:21:22 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
On the other hand, the upstream tarballs are becoming temporary cruft that
are not the preferred form for
Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi writes:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 01:20:20AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Actually, if we really want to strictly +literally interpret the DFSG,
then yes, tarballs (or the directory trees they represent) are no
longer the preferred form of modification when
* Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org, 2014-03-18, 09:13:
That would work only if the embedded copy was the same version as the
packaged one. And there are lots of jQuery versions in the wild.
In 20120817111437.ga8...@jwilk.net I suggested making a package that
would bundle all the needed
❦ 18 mars 2014 16:00 CET, Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org :
On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 14:21:22 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
On the other hand, the upstream tarballs are becoming temporary cruft that
are not the preferred form for modification because they do not contain the
typical revision
Hi,
Scott Kitterman:
Oh. So you think to meet the DFSG we need to provide a copy of the VCS
repository since the tarball isn't the preferred form of modification?
Actually, if we really want to strictly +literally interpret the DFSG,
then yes, tarballs (or the directory trees they represent)
On 03/13/2014 04:57 AM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
* Philipp Kern p...@philkern.de, 2014-03-12, 21:11:
I still think it should be acceptable given that it's an open source
project, it's clearly versioned from which source it comes and we
check by not using the file that no changes have been done to the
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Craig Small wrote:
FWIW, I think the concept of a graphic needing its source is also bogus.
It means that the upstream have to hang onto some script they might of
used once years ago for.. what reason?
To give you a concrete example, I made the SPI logo (and I
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:07:22AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Craig Small wrote:
FWIW, I think the concept of a graphic needing its source is also bogus.
It means that the upstream have to hang onto some script they might of
used once years ago for.. what
On 03/13/2014 11:45 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote:
❦ 12 mars 2014 22:26 CET, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au :
The javascript world is difficult to deal with. They like embedded
copies, they may not really care about API/ABI stability, even for big
projects. Those are difficulties that we
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
A PNG is not a program.
Depends on your definition of program. PNG files are programs that run
in a PNG decoder. ELF binaries aren't programs, they are just data
interpreted by CPUs.
There is no source required for a PNG under DFSG #2
I
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:50:13AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
A PNG is not a program.
Depends on your definition of program.
Yes. If you use the English definition of the word program, then it's not
a program. But I guess if you make up
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:50:13AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
I guess you are referring to the GR that clarified the Social Contract
to read work instead of software.
https://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003
That was a conscious decision on the part
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
That was a conscious decision on the part of the project to revise the text
of the Social Contract. That vote did *not* replace the use of the word
program in DFSG#2 with the word software. It is incorrect to infer from
this vote that
Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes:
As far as I can tell, not modifying the DSFG at the same time was an
oversight. Fixing that mistake was attempted in a later GR but that was
blocked with a narrow margin.
https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_004
That GR proposal does not require source for
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Paul Wise writes:
As far as I can tell, not modifying the DSFG at the same time was an
oversight. Fixing that mistake was attempted in a later GR but that was
blocked with a narrow margin.
https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_004
That
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:24:19AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
That was a conscious decision on the part of the project to revise the text
of the Social Contract. That vote did *not* replace the use of the word
program in DFSG#2 with the
Le Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:47:44AM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit :
I note that the ftpmasters currently reject packages that are missing
source for non-programmatic works (REJECT-FAQ explicitly mentions
PS/PDF documentation). So the current archive requirements are in
practice stricter than the
On 03/13/2014 01:21 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:48:44AM -0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
What percentage of free software in Debian main do you expect then?
Hi Scott,
I expect 100 % in the binary packages.
On the other hand, the upstream tarballs are becoming
On 03/13/2014 01:37 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Thursday, March 13, 2014 14:21:22 Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:48:44AM -0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
What percentage of free software in Debian main do you expect then?
Hi Scott,
I expect 100 % in the binary packages.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:58:51PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
I have a completely different approach to the DFSG. The DFSG is not
carefully drafted document and it doesn't stand up to detailed
legalistic interpretation. Rather, it is a statement of aims and
values.
That was certainly how I
❦ 12 mars 2014 22:26 CET, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au :
The javascript world is difficult to deal with. They like embedded
copies, they may not really care about API/ABI stability, even for big
projects. Those are difficulties that we already have to deal with. We
already work
On Thu, 13 Mar 2014, Craig Small wrote:
It means that the upstream have to hang onto some script they might of
used once years ago for.. what reason?
No, that's not what it means. The whole point of requiring source is to
stop artificially inhibiting user's (and Debian's) ability to modify a
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 02:34:47PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
You may think a line is somewhere, but the DFSG is interpreted by the
ftp-masters, so the question isn't what paultag or ian says, but what
the ftp-masters say :)
I don't accept that. The interpretation must come from a
Le mardi, 11 mars 2014, 19.02:55 Ian Jackson a écrit :
Thomas Goirand writes (Re: jquery debate with upstream):
In one of my package, I had openssl.dll in the source tarball (it
was of course removed later on).
Would you consider it ok as well to have it in a source package, as
long
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes (Re: jquery debate with upstream):
I disagree: I don't think it's tolerable to ship a .exe freeware [0] in
a source package in main, just because it happens to be redistributable;
in my reading, considering that the source package _is_ a component of
the Debian
Le mercredi, 12 mars 2014, 12.58:51 Ian Jackson a écrit :
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes (Re: jquery debate with upstream):
I disagree: I don't think it's tolerable to ship a .exe freeware [0]
in a source package in main, just because it happens to be
redistributable; in my reading
On Wed, 12 Mar 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
No-one has come up with any practical benefit from the repacking of
source tarballs to remove nonfree files.
Non-free files in source files are distributed by Debian. They cannot be
modified, inspected, or easily patched. Removing them assures us that
Also archive size, for what it's worth.
Shipping GBs of DLLs, minified JS and other sourceless nonsense
is totally a waste of everyone's time and storage space.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
No-one has come up
Quoting Ian Jackson (2014-03-12 13:58:51)
If an interpretation of the DFSG suggests that we should be doing work
which does not further those objectives, then I think that
interpretation is a misreading. Conversely, if an interpretation of
the DFSG suggests that we should tolerate a
On 12.03.2014 16:47, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
Also archive size, for what it's worth.
Shipping GBs of DLLs, minified JS and other sourceless nonsense
is totally a waste of everyone's time and storage space.
this is not a good argument, the best you can usually get out of
upstreams it to ship
Hi,
On 2014-03-11 00:09, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Am Montag, den 10.03.2014, 20:29 +0100 schrieb Philipp Kern:
as long as the code in question is not under a license that requires
the
full, non-minified source to be reproduced and if the copyright
notices
and license terms as potentially
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Philipp Kern p...@philkern.de wrote:
Hi,
On 2014-03-11 00:09, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Am Montag, den 10.03.2014, 20:29 +0100 schrieb Philipp Kern:
as long as the code in question is not under a license that requires the
full, non-minified source to be
❦ 12 mars 2014 21:11 CET, Philipp Kern p...@philkern.de :
how bad would it be for those upstreams to just include an unused copy
of the non-minified version? Clearly it'd never be used by anything in
the upstream packaging because you almost always want to ship minified
JS to browsers in
* Philipp Kern p...@philkern.de, 2014-03-12, 21:11:
I still think it should be acceptable given that it's an open source
project, it's clearly versioned from which source it comes and we
check by not using the file that no changes have been done to the
minification. I guess we could even go
Vincent Bernat ber...@debian.org writes:
[A bundled, source version of the library] will just go out of sync.
For upstream, the preferred form of modification is the minified
version (modification is merely the update to a new version).
Yes, the cause of that is that upstream doesn't treat
On March 12, 2014 03:29:52 PM Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le mercredi, 12 mars 2014, 12.58:51 Ian Jackson a écrit :
If an interpretation of the DFSG suggests that we should be doing work
which does not further those objectives, then I think that
interpretation is a misreading.
SC§1
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 23:22:13 Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On March 12, 2014 03:29:52 PM Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le mercredi, 12 mars 2014, 12.58:51 Ian Jackson a écrit :
If an interpretation of the DFSG suggests that we should be doing work
which does not further those objectives,
Le Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:48:44AM -0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
What percentage of free software in Debian main do you expect then?
Hi Scott,
I expect 100 % in the binary packages.
On the other hand, the upstream tarballs are becoming temporary cruft that
are not the preferred form for
Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com writes:
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 23:22:13 Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On March 12, 2014 03:29:52 PM Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
SC§1 states that we want Debian to remain 100% free; the common
interpretation of that is that one can download anything from
On Thursday, March 13, 2014 14:21:22 Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:48:44AM -0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
What percentage of free software in Debian main do you expect then?
Hi Scott,
I expect 100 % in the binary packages.
On the other hand, the upstream tarballs
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 22:23:02 Russ Allbery wrote:
Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com writes:
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 23:22:13 Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On March 12, 2014 03:29:52 PM Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
SC§1 states that we want Debian to remain 100% free; the common
Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com writes:
I think it's black and white if it's a bug. If it's worth investing the
effort in fixing the bug is all kinds of shades of gray.
I don't think that's a horribly useful distinction for this conversation,
which is about what will be accepted into the
On March 11, 2014 10:50:10 AM Paul Wise wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
I'd love to see clarification of the ftp-team's position on obfuscated
files in source packages, preferably in an official location for future
reference.
Recalling that the context of the
Quoting Steve M. Robbins (2014-03-11 07:11:36)
On March 11, 2014 10:50:10 AM Paul Wise wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
I'd love to see clarification of the ftp-team's position on
obfuscated files in source packages, preferably in an official
location for future
Jonas Smedegaard writes (Re: jquery debate with upstream):
Quoting Steve M. Robbins (2014-03-11 07:11:36)
I can understand that it is nicer if upstream can be persuaded to
clean things up and not do either of the above. I also realize that
some folks may prefer to re-pack a tarball
[ not as ftpteam -- man, I'm saying this a lot lately ]
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 03:16:14PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
You have conspicuously failed to answer Jonas's question. What
objective does removing these files and repacking the tarballs serve ?
We distribute source. The question is, do
On 03/11/2014 11:16 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Debian have a certain definition of Freedoms [...]
Whose freedom is impaired, and in what way, by the presence of these
useless but ignored files in the tarball ?
In one of my package, I had openssl.dll in the source tarball (it was of
course removed
Paul Tagliamonte writes (Re: jquery debate with upstream):
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 03:16:14PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
You have conspicuously failed to answer Jonas's question. What
objective does removing these files and repacking the tarballs serve ?
We distribute source. The question
[not ftpteam]
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 06:09:40PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
I don't think this is a significant breach of the DFSG.
Ah, but you do acknowledge this *is* a breach, even if a small one.
So this comes down to where the line is, like I said.
You may think a line is somewhere, but
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
Repackaging these tarballs for this reason is utterly pointless.
No-one has been able to explain what the benefit is, to anyone. All we
get when we challenge it is, I'm sad to say, vague and abstract
responses like this one.
The point of repacking the
Thomas Goirand writes (Re: jquery debate with upstream):
In one of my package, I had openssl.dll in the source tarball (it was of
course removed later on).
Would you consider it ok as well to have it in a source package, as long
as it's not used during the build? And what about a windows
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 06:09:40PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
We should stop this makework and get on with doing something useful.
Thanks for providing me with my 'word of the day' (makework) which seems
to me to embody a growing collection of activities in Debian in modern
times.
--
To
On 2014-03-11, Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 06:09:40PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
I don't think this is a significant breach of the DFSG.
Ah, but you do acknowledge this *is* a breach, even if a small one.
So this comes down to where the line is, like I
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 11.03.2014, 19:02 + schrieb Ian Jackson:
I think that if we want a more convenient and reliable way to avoid
them being used during the build, we should have a way to make
dpkg-source remove the files from the tree as it unpacks the source.
debian/clean is sufficient
Le Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 08:14:24PM +, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 06:09:40PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
We should stop this makework and get on with doing something useful.
Thanks for providing me with my 'word of the day' (makework) which seems
to me to embody a
Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk writes:
If I had to disregard the DFSG in some cases, I'd rather see rfc files
in our files than sourceless javascripts.
If they're in the source packages but not installed, I believe this is an
equivalent case, yes. And it would certainly make some packages
On 03/12/2014 05:16 AM, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2014-03-11, Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 06:09:40PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
I don't think this is a significant breach of the DFSG.
Ah, but you do acknowledge this *is* a breach, even if a small one.
So
Hi,
Am Montag, den 10.03.2014, 20:29 +0100 schrieb Philipp Kern:
as long as the code in question is not under a license that requires the
full, non-minified source to be reproduced and if the copyright notices
and license terms as potentially required by the license are present, I
don't
Joachim Breitner nome...@debian.org writes:
So you’d say it is acceptable to leave jquery-1.11.0.min.js in a tarball
if it is unused (e.g. if it is removed in the clean target, and possibly
documented in README.Source)? Can maybe someone from the ftp-team
confirm this?
My understanding (as
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
I'd love to see clarification of the ftp-team's position on obfuscated
files in source packages, preferably in an official location for future
reference.
I quote from [1]:
Source missing
Your package contains files that need source but do
71 matches
Mail list logo
