Le ven. 1 févr. 2019 à 18:52, Paolo Greppi <[email protected]> a écrit :
> Il 01/02/19 16:59, Xavier ha scritto: > > Le Vendredi, Février 01, 2019 16:49 CET, Jonas Smedegaard < > [email protected]> a écrit: > > > >> Quoting Xavier (2019-02-01 16:30:01) > >>> Le 01/02/2019 à 15:34, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > >>>> Quoting Xavier (2019-02-01 15:16:39) > >>>>> Le 01/02/2019 à 14:57, Paolo Greppi a écrit : > >>>>>> Hi, I have prepared an update to node-js-beautify to close this bug > quickly: > >>>>>> http://bugs.debian.org/888903 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I have opted for not updating it to 1.8.9 because ATM its > build-rdepends node-postcss is at version 6.0.23 which we know work fine > with js-beautify 1.7.5. > >>>>>> When we update node-postcss we can update node-js-beautify as well. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please someone sponsor the upload: > >>>>>> https://salsa.debian.org/js-team/node-js-beautify > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Paolo > >>>>> > >>>>> I added minimal test during build. Is it OK for the team to rename > >>>>> js-beautify to js-beautify2 ? > >>>>>> If you mean the executable, then please simply avoid installing > instead: > > We can then consider later - without stress - if needed at all > and if so > > which of them is more suitably renamed). > >>>>>> If you mean package name then not now, then please don't: That will > end > > in NEW queue which is too risky at this late date! > >>>>>> - Jonas > >>>> See changes, Paolo modified only /usr/bin/js-beautify to > >>> /usr/bin/js-beautify2 of course > >> > >> And I say please don't do that! > >> > >> - Jonas > > > > I fully agree with you, that's why I put this discussion here ;-) > > node-js-beautify installs three binaries: > https://salsa.debian.org/js-team/node-js-beautify/blob/master/debian/links > as per package.json: > > https://salsa.debian.org/js-team/node-js-beautify/blob/master/package.json#L6 > > IMHO it makes sense for the node-* package to match as closely as possible > the node module on npm > since we can't use /usr/bin/js-beautify which is taken, I renamed it ! > > BTW the one I renamed: > > cat /usr/bin/js-beautify2 > #!/usr/bin/env node > > var cli = require('../lib/cli'); > cli.interpret(); > > is different from the one included in python-jsbeautifier: > > cat /usr/bin/js-beautify > #!/usr/bin/python3 > # > # Stub script to run jsbeautifier > # > import sys > from jsbeautifier import main > sys.exit(main()) > > upstream offers two alternative implementations (JS and python), so > someone could legitimately decide to use one or the other > > node-js-beautify has 6 popcon users, I bet the other two are also > subscribed to this list so don't be shy ! > The problem here with distributing an executable under another name, is that it will give everyone (distributors and users) a lot of work to come back to the "right" name later: the workaround is worse than the problem itself. If the python package does not distribute html-beautify or css-beautify, then you can let the js package distribute them. In this particular case it's all the more quite useless to distribute a js-beautify2 if the python version has the same cli arguments - and i suppose the same test suite. Jérémy
-- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
