Allow images in installation profiles [#831412]

In the media_dev profile, I want to include a few GPL files: A couple images, an mp3 and an mp4. This is to demonstrate the various capabilities to developers out of the box. It makes it a lot faster to install and test if you can fill it up with assets and for consistency in development and testing.

This message is shown on commit. While it is well intentioned, it doesn't really make any sense to me. Modules and themes also have the same legal requirement, but there is no such blanket restriction there.

Can we change this?

** Access denied: this file is not allowed:
** contributions/profiles/media_dev/files/Druplicon.large.png
** The only file types allowed in contributions/profiles are .profile,
** .inc, .install, .make, and .txt.
** Packaged files (.gz, .tar, .tgz, and .zip) are not allowed anywhere.
** License files (LICENSE.txt) are not allowed, since everything committed
** to the Drupal CVS repository must be licensed under the GPL.
** You should never commit .svn/* or .bzr/* files to the CVS repository.
cvs commit: Pre-commit check failed

Comments

Comment #1

avpaderno

he/him

Italian

Brescia, 🇮🇹 🇪🇺

commented 18 June 2010 at 13:22

Title:

Allow GPL non-text files in in Install profiles

» Allow images in installation profiles

This message is shown on commit. While it is well intentioned, it doesn't really make any sense to me. Modules and themes also have the same legal requirement, but there is no such blanket restriction there.

The message seems clear enough to me; it's just listing which files can be committed in a installation profile (*.profile, *.inc, *.install, *.make, *.txt), and which files cannot be committed (*.gz, *.tar, *.tgz, *.zip, LICENSE.txt; all files contained in a directory named .svn, or .bzr).

Comment #2

JacobSingh commented 18 June 2010 at 13:42

So if it isn't about the license, why do profiles have different file name limitations than the rest of contrib?

Comment #3

avpaderno

he/him

Italian

Brescia, 🇮🇹 🇪🇺

commented 18 June 2010 at 13:55

The have different limitation because they are thought to different uses; clearly, not allowing images in themes would not make sense, and some modules use images for various reasons.

We can debate if it should not be allowed for installation profiles to commit images, but the different limitations are not caused by any license issues.

I see a reason to allow installation profiles to commit images: they could need to change the image used by a module, or a theme, in example.

Comment #4

JacobSingh commented 18 June 2010 at 14:49

Or for instance an flv which is used for an introductory help video.

I guess I'm looking for why we restricted it in the first place. What is the benefit?

Is there a changelog which references when that change went into a CVS hook?

Comment #5

gábor hojtsy

he/him

Hungarian

Hungary

commented 18 June 2010 at 15:43

The reason this was originally ~~submitted~~restricted was to get people submit actual functionality to modules instead of the install profile. Ie. do not ship an install profile with a module included. Therefore a white list of extensions were devised. I think this is getting to be outdated with all the funky install profiles people have though.

Comment #6

JacobSingh commented 18 June 2010 at 19:50

Yeah, and the fact that profiles are like modules now.

In fact, I think it's kinda a best practice to not have a custom module for your profile, but keep the profile specific stuff in the profile itself. (this would include branding elements like images, videos, etc) and also sample content (as I am trying to do).

-J