❦ 15 octobre 2015 10:26 +1100, Ben Finney :
>> > I am personally convinced that nowadays the definition of source
>> > should *no longer* be regarded as an open question: I think that the
>> > most commonly used and accepted definition of source code is the one
>> > found in the GNU GPL license.
Ángel González writes:
> On 15/10/15 00:50, Riley Baird wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200
>> Francesco Poli wrote:
>>
>>> The alternatives you propose are vague at best.
>>>
>>> For further details on what I think about the definition of source,
>>> anyone interested may read my essay:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Ole Streicher wrote:
> For one of my packages (python-astropy), I got a Lintian error that it
> would contain a non-source file jquery.dataTables.js. This is mainly
> discussed in a bug report
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/798900
FYI folks: the outcome of this bug
Paul Wise writes:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Ole Streicher wrote:
>
> > https://bugs.debian.org/798900
>
> FYI folks: the outcome of this bug report is that the jQuery
> dataTables plugin has been packaged properly and built from source
> properly using the upstream build system.
Great
Charles Plessy writes ("Re: Source files"):
> sorry for drifting that thread further... I can not help adding
> that, the world being in perpetual change, the definition of source
> will one day become an open question again. My favorite guess is
> that at some point, it will be argued that the co
5 matches
Mail list logo