On 26/04/14 01:31, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > 2014-04-26 00:08 Vincent Bernat: >> ❦ 25 avril 2014 17:40 CEST, Neil Williams <codeh...@debian.org> : >> >>> Compared to that amount of work, stripping a few files from a tarball >>> using uscan is utterly trivial and I don't see why it is a problem. >>> It's quite a bit harder to do the right thing and persuade upstream to >>> not include them. >> >> How to handle this with gbp? > > I guess that one of the best things that you can do is to filter the > files, like > other cruft in the tarball coming from upstream, example: > > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-sdl/packages/libsdl2.git;a=blob;f=debian/gbp.conf;h=b3a5a0939feff4f6578c8d617059ac7e740b778b;hb=HEAD >
The problem with this (or any other approach) is that DDs need to spend much more time checking every upstream tarball and adapting the filter rules each time they update the package. This is especially true for upstreams that are web-based projects where dealing with minified js is like playing whack a mole. Once again, my feeling is that it needs to be done pro-actively (by scripts that track the upstream repository/releases) to assist the DD. Many cases of minified js are easily spotted by certain patterns (like long lines) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/535b5824.9000...@pocock.pro
