[Pkg-mozext-maintainers] source code for xul extensions [was: Re: #573250 -- conflict between policy and mozilla-devscripts about file placement]

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

i felt like this deserved its own thread:

On 03/10/2010 04:46 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> As a side note, I don't think using packed .xpi files should be helped
> by the tools, but that the .xpi files should be unpacked and made a
> proper source tarball. Also note that some extensions provide .xpt
> files, and here I'm sorry to shout but THEY ARE NOT SOURCE FILES. .xpt
> files are generated from .idl files. If you don't have them, then it
> means you don't have the source and are therefore probably not
> respecting the software license. Your upstream may also not providethe
> source in which case she may herself be breaching her own license.

Completely agreed, and the issue isn't just xpt files, unfortunately --
there are often build scripts, image source files, etc, which are
missing from the xpi but would normally be included as the preferred
form of modification.

Perhaps a section of reasonable advice could be added to the policy
draft of things to watch out for.  (do the new lintian checks handle the
common failures in this regard?)

	--dkg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 891 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-mozext-maintainers/attachments/20100310/8e0dffad/attachment-0001.pgp>