[Pkg-javascript-devel] JS policy: repackaging upstream tarball when minified js files are present (was: Call for review: should.js packages)

[Emilien Klein]

No other comments from the team on Jérémy's proposal?
   +Emilien



2014-04-25 23:49 GMT+02:00 Jérémy Lal <kapouer at melix.org>:
> Le vendredi 25 avril 2014 à 23:34 +0200, Emilien Klein a écrit :
>> 2014-04-24 18:34 GMT+02:00 Jérémy Lal <kapouer at melix.org>:
>> > The conclusion coming out of these dicussions could also go in
>> > developers reference or best packaging practices ?
>>
>> Makes sense.
>>
>> > Please fix this (badly formulated) proposal:
>> >
>> > Strict application of DFSG requires files generated from source in
>> > upstream tarball to be excluded
>>
>> "excluded from what" would be the question. How can we make explicit
>> that it must be removed from the upstream tarball?
>
> i meant excluded from upstream tarball, which seems to be the safest
> solution (correct me if i'm wrong).
>
>> > , unless it is possible to regenerate the
>> > files and prove they are identical to the ones in the tarball.
>> > Minified files and browserified files
>>
>> What's a "browserified file"? I'm not familiar with that term.
>
> It (automatically) transforms a script and the modules it requires into
> a single file that can be used in a browser.
> The built file is often distributed in the upstream tarball.
>
>> > are examples of such files that
>> > could be excluded for that reason.
>> > A convenient way to achieve this is to use debian/copyright
>> > Files-Excluded field, see https://wiki.debian.org/UscanEnhancements.
>>
>>     +Emilien
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
>> Pkg-javascript-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org
>> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
>
>
>