Quoting Pirate Praveen (2017-10-12 08:25:06)
> On ബുധന് 11 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 10:10 വൈകു, Ben Finney wrote:
> > What change to the policy do you suggest?
> >
> Add this,
>
> 6. If the library is primarily developed as a Node.js module and browser
> part is generated from Node.js sources using a modu
On ബുധന് 11 ഒക്ടോബര് 2017 10:10 വൈകു, Ben Finney wrote:
> What change to the policy do you suggest?
>
Add this,
6. If the library is primarily developed as a Node.js module and browser
part is generated from Node.js sources using a module bundler like
browserify, webpack or rollup, it should fo
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:19:30 +0530, Pirate Praveen
said:
> Hi, In a recent bug report, I came across this disparity,
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=877213#36
> npm2deb creates source packages with node- prefix. I think the policy
> should be updated to reflect this.
Yup.
Pirate Praveen writes:
> In a recent bug report, I came across this disparity,
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=877213#36
>
> npm2deb creates source packages with node- prefix. I think the policy
> should be updated to reflect this.
What change to the policy do you suggest?
-
Please CC me on all replies, I don't receive mail from this mailing list due to
too much node-related traffic that I don't want to see.
> In a recent bug report, I came across this disparity,
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=877213#36
>
> npm2deb creates source packages with n
Le lundi 16 juin 2014 à 11:45 +0200, Daniel Pocock a écrit :
>
> Looking at
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/Javascript/Policy
>
> there are some ambiguities in point 4 (*should* ship a /minified/
> version for each script, generated at build time (use /uglifyjs/ to this
> purpose) )
>
>
> - a pack
Hi Ben,
Thank you to participate to this debate, as I've no personal conviction
and even no personal legitimation to enforce any conviction, I'm glad to
have legitimates POV.
Le 31/03/2014 06:34, Ben Finney a écrit :
> François-Régis writes:
>> Le 31/03/2014 00:03, Ben Finney a écrit :
>>> * How
François-Régis writes:
> Hi Ben,
>
> Le 31/03/2014 00:03, Ben Finney a écrit :
> > * How do we know – and demonstrate to anyone who asks – the truth of
> > the assertion that the source is actually the corresponding source
> > of the exact non-source file?
>
> Before asking how do we know, we
Hi Ben,
Le 31/03/2014 00:03, Ben Finney a écrit :
> François-Régis writes:
>> As initiator of the thread, I may recall that the question we ask is
>> "Should we remove from source tarball minified versions of source
>> files existing in tarball".
> An outcome of the thread is to show that the ori
François-Régis writes:
> As initiator of the thread, I may recall that the question we ask is
> "Should we remove from source tarball minified versions of source
> files existing in tarball".
An outcome of the thread is to show that the original question is
ill-posed, because it hides some impor
Hi Marcello, Hi Emilien
Le 29/03/2014 22:33, Marcelo Jorge Vieira a écrit :
> On Sat, 2014-03-29 at 10:33 +0100, Emilien Klein wrote:
>> 2014-03-29 9:57 GMT+01:00 Emilien Klein :
>>> I feel we are stuck. In the intent to bring this discussion to a
>>> close, would you strongly disagree if I ask th
Hello,
On Sat, 2014-03-29 at 10:33 +0100, Emilien Klein wrote:
> 2014-03-29 9:57 GMT+01:00 Emilien Klein :
> > I feel we are stuck. In the intent to bring this discussion to a
> > close, would you strongly disagree if I ask the question on the -devel
> > mailing list?
>
> Let me rephrase that:
>
Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-03-29 09:57:20)
> 2014-03-29 9:17 GMT+01:00 Ben Finney :
>>> I feel there is more value in shipping the upstream tarball (if we
>>> can assure the minified file comes from the supplied source), as
>>> repackaging is an extra step that could theoretically go wrong.
>>
>
2014-03-29 9:57 GMT+01:00 Emilien Klein :
> I feel we are stuck. In the intent to bring this discussion to a
> close, would you strongly disagree if I ask the question on the -devel
> mailing list?
Let me rephrase that:
I will send a draft of the email on our js mailing list, presenting
both sides
2014-03-29 9:17 GMT+01:00 Ben Finney :
> This is significantly more complex and more prone to false positives,
> than simply dropping the non-source files from the source package, as I
> propose.
I'm not saying it's even working. I am suggesting a potential solution
to getting the response to "is
Ben Finney writes:
> There is a method for [ensuring that every Debian release of the
> source package ships no files without corresponding source]:
>
> Don't distribute the minified file from upstream; instead, distribute
> only the source form of the work, and compile a minified file during
> t
2014-03-28 0:28 GMT+01:00 Ben Finney :
> Emilien Klein writes:
>
>> Let's take the example of jquery-lazyload [0].
>>
>> Both these files are provided in the upstream tarball:
>> - jquery.lazyload.js
>> - jquery.lazyload.min.js
>>
>> With the second one being the minified form of the first one.
>
Emilien Klein writes:
> Let's take the example of jquery-lazyload [0].
>
> Both these files are provided in the upstream tarball:
> - jquery.lazyload.js
> - jquery.lazyload.min.js
>
> With the second one being the minified form of the first one.
How will you guarantee that ‘jquery.lazyload.js’ i
Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-03-27 13:30:23)
> 2014-03-27 0:13 GMT+01:00 Ben Finney :
> > Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> >
> >> DFSG #2:
> >>
> >> > The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
> >> > source code as well as compiled form.
> >>
> >> I believe the term "source cod
2014-03-27 0:13 GMT+01:00 Ben Finney :
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>
>> DFSG #2:
>>
>> > The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
>> > source code as well as compiled form.
>>
>> I believe the term "source code" is in Debian generally interpreted as
>> "preferred form of
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> DFSG #2:
>
> > The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
> > source code as well as compiled form.
>
> I believe the term "source code" is in Debian generally interpreted as
> "preferred form of modification".
(That should be “preferred for
Quoting François-Régis (2014-03-26 23:50:08)
> Le 26/03/2014 23:45, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
>> Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-03-26 22:10:31)
>>> The current policy is made using the assumption that minified ==
>>> compiled.
>>
>> Arguably minification is not compilation, but neither is it the
>>
Le 26/03/2014 23:45, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-03-26 22:10:31)
>> The current policy is made using the assumption that minified ==
>> compiled.
>
> Arguably minification is not compilation, but neither is it the
> preferred form of modification.
>
>
>> To help ma
Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-03-26 22:10:31)
> The current policy is made using the assumption that minified ==
> compiled.
Arguably minification is not compilation, but neither is it the
preferred form of modification.
> To help make this situation clearer, can somebody point us to (1) the
>
Hi Emilien,
Le 26/03/2014 23:12, Emilien Klein a écrit :
> 2014-03-26 23:03 GMT+01:00 François-Régis :
> [snip]
>> I may be wrong but what we distribute is binary package, which should'nt
>> include minified version of source tarball but only ones we have built.
>
> I agree with the rest of your
Emilien Klein writes:
> Hi Ben,
>
> 2014-03-26 22:30 GMT+01:00 Ben Finney :
> > Emilien Klein writes:
> >
> >> The current policy is made using the assumption that minified == compiled.
> >> For my information: Has this ever clearly and definitively been
> >> established?
> >
> > I'm not underst
Le 26/03/2014 22:30, Ben Finney a écrit :
> Emilien Klein writes:
>
>> The current policy is made using the assumption that minified == compiled.
>> For my information: Has this ever clearly and definitively been
>> established?
>
> I'm not understanding your question. What assumption are you de
Hi François-Régis,
2014-03-26 23:03 GMT+01:00 François-Régis :
[snip]
> I may be wrong but what we distribute is binary package, which should'nt
> include minified version of source tarball but only ones we have built.
I agree with the rest of your message, but must let you know that you
are inde
Hi Ben,
2014-03-26 22:30 GMT+01:00 Ben Finney :
> Emilien Klein writes:
>
>> The current policy is made using the assumption that minified == compiled.
>> For my information: Has this ever clearly and definitively been
>> established?
>
> I'm not understanding your question. What assumption are y
Hi Emilien,
Le 26/03/2014 22:10, Emilien Klein a écrit :
> 2014-03-25 23:34 GMT+01:00 François-Régis :
>> I should have said "A pkg-javascript policy could be we don't embed
>> minified files into orig tarball"
>
> This is correct when Debian packager == upstream maintainer. For most
> packages,
Emilien Klein writes:
> The current policy is made using the assumption that minified == compiled.
> For my information: Has this ever clearly and definitively been
> established?
I'm not understanding your question. What assumption are you describing?
Equating “minified” with “compiled” is not
Hi François-Régis,
2014-03-25 23:34 GMT+01:00 François-Régis :
> I should have said "A pkg-javascript policy could be we don't embed
> minified files into orig tarball"
This is correct when Debian packager == upstream maintainer. For most
packages, that is not the case.
The current policy (we ne
Hi David,
Le 25/03/2014 01:47, "David Prévot" a écrit :
> Hi François-Régis,
>
>> I may be wrong but perhaps providing minified files in source tarball
>> (which are considered as binary files) is DFSG compliant providing we
>> have the sources, but debian policy is to exclude them from sources.
"David Prévot" writes:
> Hi François-Régis,
>
> > I may be wrong but perhaps providing minified files in source tarball
> > (which are considered as binary files) is DFSG compliant providing we
> > have the sources, but debian policy is to exclude them from sources.
>
> Can you please be specific
Quoting François-Régis (2014-03-25 01:07:20)
> Le 22/03/2014 12:37, David Prévot a écrit :
>> Le 22/03/2014 05:33, Emilien Klein a écrit :
>>> On 03/21/2014 11:22 PM, François-Régis wrote:
Le 21/03/2014 07:45, Emilien Klein a écrit :
We may have something like :
* Origin tarball
Hi François-Régis,
> I may be wrong but perhaps providing minified files in source tarball
> (which are considered as binary files) is DFSG compliant providing we
> have the sources, but debian policy is to exclude them from sources.
Can you please be specific about what (point of) debian policy
Le 22/03/2014 12:37, David Prévot a écrit :
> Le 22/03/2014 05:33, Emilien Klein a écrit :
>> On 03/21/2014 11:22 PM, François-Régis wrote:
>>> Le 21/03/2014 07:45, Emilien Klein a écrit :
>>> We may have something like :
>>>
>>> * Origin tarball should not include any minify code.
>
> Maybe ther
On 12-03-19 at 07:37pm, Jose Luis Rivas wrote:
> On 03/18/2012 03:11 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > On 12-03-18 at 02:52pm, Jose Luis Rivas wrote:
> >> On 03/18/2012 01:05 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, I were too brief: I do know briefly about PET, including
> >>> above Perl CGI
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On 03/18/2012 03:11 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 12-03-18 at 02:52pm, Jose Luis Rivas wrote:
>> On 03/18/2012 01:05 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry, I were too brief: I do know briefly about PET, including
>>> above Perl CGI.
>>>
On 12-03-18 at 02:52pm, Jose Luis Rivas wrote:
> On 03/18/2012 01:05 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, I were too brief: I do know briefly about PET, including
> > above Perl CGI.
> >
> > What I don't know is what it required to use it.
>
> Not much:
> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On 03/18/2012 01:05 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> Sorry, I were too brief: I do know briefly about PET, including
> above Perl CGI.
>
> What I don't know is what it required to use it.
Not much:
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pet/pet3.g
On 12-03-18 at 12:23pm, Jose Luis Rivas wrote:
> On 03/18/2012 11:26 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > On 12-03-15 at 11:05pm, Jose Luis Rivas wrote:
> >> Plus, we should start using a PET, don't you guys think?
> >
> > I am not familiar with PET: Convince me! :-)
> >
> It's a Package Entropy Track
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On 03/18/2012 11:26 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 12-03-15 at 11:05pm, Jose Luis Rivas wrote:
>> Plus, we should start using a PET, don't you guys think?
>
> I am not familiar with PET: Convince me! :-)
>
It's a Package Entropy Tracker, it te
On 12-03-15 at 11:05pm, Jose Luis Rivas wrote:
> Plus, we should start using a PET, don't you guys think?
I am not familiar with PET: Convince me! :-)
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On 03/15/2012 05:23 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
+1 what Jonas said.
Plus, we should start using a PET, don't you guys think?
- --
Jose Luis Rivas - GPG: 0x7C4DF50D / 0xCACAB118
The Debian Project Developer -- http://ghostbar.ath.cx
Barquisime
On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 22:53 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 12-03-15 at 09:57pm, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> > here are my preferences about two small questions that could be fixed
> > by http://wiki.debian.org/Javascript/Policy
> >
> > * nothing is said about the preferred source package name when
>
On 12-03-15 at 09:57pm, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> here are my preferences about two small questions that could be fixed
> by http://wiki.debian.org/Javascript/Policy
>
> * nothing is said about the preferred source package name when
> "library is usable both from a web-browser and from NodeJS"
> I
47 matches
Mail list logo
