Fix self-contradictory web assets guidelines #1539

Open
gotmax23 wants to merge 2 commits from gotmax23/packaging-guidelines:web-no-self-contradict into main
Owner

See the two commit messages for more details. This should address the concerns about self-contradictory guidelines brought up in #1496.

(I also noticed other out-of-date stuff in the Web Assets Guidelines (guidelines about Flash and Java applets) that should be dealt with in a separate PR.)

See the two commit messages for more details. This should address the concerns about self-contradictory guidelines brought up in #1496. (I also noticed other out-of-date stuff in the Web Assets Guidelines (guidelines about Flash and Java applets) that should be dealt with in a separate PR.)
See #1496.
The current text of the Guidelines are confusing because in once
paragraph it says CSS must be re-generated and in another it says it
doesn't have to be. This clarifies the text so it is inline with
decision made in https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3269.
See the previous commit message. The Javascript Guidelines had the same
problem, but it required more textual changes to make the document
internally consistent while still expressing (what I think is) the
intended meaning.
Member

Thanks @gotmax23 this reads a lot cleaner to me and makes it the initial mentioned hardship exception indeed turns the compilation at RPM build into a SHOULD 👍

Thanks @gotmax23 this reads a lot cleaner to me and makes it the initial mentioned hardship exception indeed turns the compilation at RPM build into a SHOULD 👍
churchyard approved these changes 2026-05-18 08:20:00 +00:00
@ -117,3 +114,2 @@
for a list of known problem areas and suggestions for workarounds.
Additionally, the uncompiled/unminified version MUST be included
Additionally, the uncompiled/unminified version SHOULD be included
Owner

I'm gonna note for the record that I do not understand exactly what is being asked for here. Should I ship the full-size JavaScript in the same RPM that ships the minified one? Or just include in the SRPM?


Nevertheless, this rule already existed before and now is just MUST->SHOULD, so my curiosity should not block this PR.

I'm gonna note for the record that I do not understand exactly what is being asked for here. Should I ship the full-size JavaScript in the same RPM that ships the minified one? Or just include in the SRPM? --- Nevertheless, this rule already existed before and now is just MUST->SHOULD, so my curiosity should not block this PR.
This pull request can be merged automatically.
This branch is out-of-date with the base branch
You are not authorized to merge this pull request.
View command line instructions

Checkout

From your project repository, check out a new branch and test the changes.
git fetch -u web-no-self-contradict:gotmax23-web-no-self-contradict
git switch gotmax23-web-no-self-contradict

Merge

Merge the changes and update on Forgejo.

Warning: The "Autodetect manual merge" setting is not enabled for this repository, you will have to mark this pull request as manually merged afterwards.

git switch main
git merge --no-ff gotmax23-web-no-self-contradict
git switch gotmax23-web-no-self-contradict
git rebase main
git switch main
git merge --ff-only gotmax23-web-no-self-contradict
git switch gotmax23-web-no-self-contradict
git rebase main
git switch main
git merge --no-ff gotmax23-web-no-self-contradict
git switch main
git merge --squash gotmax23-web-no-self-contradict
git switch main
git merge --ff-only gotmax23-web-no-self-contradict
git switch main
git merge gotmax23-web-no-self-contradict
git push origin main
Sign in to join this conversation.
No reviewers
No milestone
No project
No assignees
3 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
packaging/guidelines!1539
No description provided.