On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Michael Gilbert <[email protected]> wrote:
> Since this package is perhaps a bit weird, see the following > links for more info: Weird indeed! /me hugs the web > The logic for building from existing prototype/scriptaculous packages > is to avoid introducing duplicated code copies, which the security > team rather despises ;) Hmm, that makes it more like a static library, which is bad, but not as bad as an embedded code copy. Actually, looking the package, it isn't quite as bad as a static library. Hmm, you could make it even less bad by adding triggers on the prototype and scriptaculous files and rebuilding there. > It would be a lot easier to just copy the pre-built protoaculous, but i'm > trying to be kind. Don't forget DFSG #2 ;) I'm wondering if we should encourage web developers to use this level of insanity by packaging it in Debian? Hmmm, I guess then they'd just dump it into their dev tree. Or not be using Debian in the first place. Looking at the postinst code, actually I'm wondering if a more generalised solution would be useful. Instead of including lots of JS files in a page, you could define "bundles" and dpkg would then rebuild the bundles whenever you upgrade one of the libjs-* packages in the bundle. This could go into javascript-common to allow the speed advantages of protoaculous with more generality. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
