On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Yavor Doganov wrote: > Only because they don't exist. It would never occur to me to > regenerate an image file that is already in the tarball. I don't see > the point; it seems unnecessary complication to me.
We build from source for various reasons, it is no different with graphics: To ensure that your build toolchain still works at all with your sources, you need to rebuild as often as possible. To detect problems in the output, you need to rebuild as often as possible. To gain improvements in the output, you need to rebuild as often as possible. Personally I would never commit generated files of any kind to my VCS and never allow them to be added to a source tarball (except grudgingly accepting that autotools work that way). > If there was no .blend file in the tarball and we were unaware of its > existence, would it be a DFSG violation? PNG files are editable, and > it could be possible, in theory and in practice, that this cuckoo > animation is created/maintained in a manual fashion (I'm not familar > with graphics design practices, so I may be wrong here). If we had reason to believe that the PNG images were not the preferred form for modification and that upstream was hiding their preferred form for modification and only releasing the rendered images, then yes I believe that is a DFSG violation. Other Debian contributors disagree, but for now it is a requirement of the ftpmasters: https://lists.debian.org/1948618.u6YZvnFvaf@scott-latitude-e6320 https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html > I anticipate there are hundreds of thousands of images in the archive, > and most probably some of them do not have the corresponding source > (or perhaps more accurately said, preferred form of modification). > Most definitely, those that have the source available are not using it > to regenerate the image files, or else there ought to be a lot of > inkscape/gimp/blender build-deps. In almost all of these cases I would say that we are just taking upstream's word for it or never bothered to check what upstream is using as their preferred form of modification. In many cases they actually threw out their preferred form of modification. In yet more cases upstream just received some files from an artist or musician and didn't think about how they would modify those files in future and what the artist used as their preferred form of modification. A lot of graphics/art/music is produced with proprietary software too. BTW, there is no need to depend on Inkscape to render SVG files as there are other smaller renderers. Likewise for XCF files since xcftools exists. Blender OTOH I think would be needed, but you can render Blender files once and put the results in an arch:all package. I wrote some best practices for upstreams about choosing the best preferred form for modification. It is also useful for detecting when the preferred form for modification is missing from the source tarball. http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Games/Upstream/#source -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6F6xrmJU56=czutuasztu2nvymreoo784ow6kf+fa5...@mail.gmail.com
