On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Yavor Doganov wrote: > There is no recipe to render the images from the .blend file. ... > Furthermore, it is possible that the current upstream has no clue at > all how to generate the images
This sounds like a problem to me. > This is usually done only for users' convenience and not because of > some bad upstream intentions. It is rather annoying if you can't > build a program because of some obscure dependency that cannot be > installed (or is burdensome to install) for some reason. I have the luxury of being a Debian user so I do tend to not worry about that sort of thing any more. > I agree. My question was would be a violation if there was no > ironclad way to determine what is the preferred form for modification. If we have no indicators we generally assume upstream is releasing the preferred form for modification. > Thanks, I didn't know that. Only one package build-depends on > xcftools which again suggests that currently it is not a common > practice in Debian to regenerate images from source. If you want to > change that you have to enforce it somehow via Policy or at least > document it as a recommended practice. That's all I wanted to say. Agreed that it is not common practice, sadly. I think we have enough in policy/DFSG to encourage this, we just need people to understand it and actually care about it, which is the hard part. -- 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/CAKTje6EwrjHvHhyvNeG=Jn3=OXgiNvf38yPRzz7MB=14wtu...@mail.gmail.com
