On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 10:43:34 -0500 Don Armstrong <d...@debian.org> wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, Pirate Praveen wrote: > > Browserified files are readable and editable javascript files. I > > believe this meets DFSG 2 requirements. Someone who is familiar with > > javascript can easily modify and run modified versions. > > [...] > > > I don't think preferred format of upstream to accept patches should not > > be a criteria to keep a package away from main. > > > > I request CTTE to make a ruling on this issue. > > Could you clarify what the precise question is that you'd like the CTTE > to answer? > > Are you asking the CTTE to make a non-binding formal announcement using > 6.1.5 as to whether, in the opinion of the CTTE, browerified source is > source under the DFSG?
Yes. > Or are you asking us to potentially overrule the ftpmasters inclusion of > libjs-handlebars? No. I want to keep libjs-handlebars in the archive. > Or potentially overrule the release managers > determination of whether this particular bug is RC or not? Yes, this would be a result of first question (whether browserified source is dfsg free). If browserified source is dfsg free, this bug cannot be rc. > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, Sam Hartman wrote: > > I definitely think we're not an appropriate body to rule on a question > > like whether a particular license is DFSG free. > > I agree. We can make a statement, but that's about it. The issue is not about license. > > However, here we're asked to give advice on whether something is > > source code. Is the question of what is the source code for a given > > package technical, and thus within our remit? I approached ctte because I thought it was a technical question. Whether browserified (mostly conatenated and slightly rearranged code) can be considered source. I have no objection to removing minified code (which renames variables, removes white spaces etc and makes it unreadable and impossible to debug or patch). I have seen some folks mixing these two issues. I also agree its not an ideal solution, but my contention is about its severity. > I think that's a narrow enough technical question for us to exercise > 6.1.1 or 6.1.4, but I think the original decision on this question > involves the ftpmasters (who have already accepted this package, but > possibly without addressing this issue) or the release managers (who > don't appear to have made a decision as to whether this bug is RC or > not). > > I'd certainly be more comfortable if the ftpmasters and release managers > would weigh in here. > > -- > Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com > > "You have many years to live--do things you will be proud to remember > when you are old." > -- Shinka proverb. (John Brunner _Stand On Zanzibar_ p413) > > -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
