Le 04/12/2020 à 22:10, Joerg Jaspert a écrit : > On 15972 March 1977, Xavier wrote: > >> Following a JS discussion (#976341), I proposed a new node-jest in NEW >> queue that splits it into multiple binary packages. > > I've seen that and skipped on the package initially. > >> We decided to embed little Node.js modules to reduce source packages >> number and then avoid having very little packages. My split generates >> some medium/little binary packages (and one big) with one source. Is it >> an acceptable way for you? > >> I did that because some components embedded in Jest are needed by other >> packages, but jest is a big package. This way reduces dependency size >> for "normal" packages (jest is generally a test dependency, not a binary >> one except for some other test tools, but some of its components are >> real dependencies). > > Does it need to be split in so many? It seems excessive. > I can somewhat follow the reasoning in the bug to strip down on > installed size of dependencies, but then a bunch of your packages doesnt > seem to have any dependency, and tiny packages. > How about a split into something like jest / the modules? Or maybe jest > / modules-light / modules-heavy (light/heavy in lots/no dependencies).
Hi, Thanks, I reduced the list (and repushed jest): * jest * node-jest-worker * node-jest-debbundle (all little components with common dependencies) Cheers, Xavier -- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel