On 06/25/2009 02:00 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 06:39 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> A requirement to rebuild the later has never existed in Fedora. >> They should be "rebuildable", if appropriate/feasible/neccessary for >> proper operation, but this was essentially left to the discretion of >> individual packagers and individual packages' demands >> >> That said, if there is something which I consider to be in need of >> further refinement, then its the definition of "binary" as being used in >> this section of the FPG. > > A related item, how do you feel about files such as java script, that > are generated from .java source via google web toolkit. The java script > file is not binary, and while it could be edited, it's not very friendly > to editing. However upstream would like to pre-generate the java script > files as it removes a rather heavy build time requirement on google web > toolkit. So the content /could/ be regenerated, but it doesn't need to > be. Would these pre-generated files be acceptable to you in a Fedora > package? > My answer would be no. Documentation is content. java and javascript are code. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
