Quoting Jérémy Lal (2014-04-30 21:09:41)
> Le mercredi 30 avril 2014 à 14:34 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
>> Quoting Jérémy Lal (2014-04-30 12:53:22)
>>> Le mercredi 30 avril 2014 à 12:35 +0200, Leo Iannacone a écrit :
>>>> On 30 April 2014 02:10, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote:
>>>>> Status of packaging is that these libraries needs packaging first:
>>>>>   node-source-map
>>>>>   node-uglify-to-browserify
>>>> About node-uglify-to-browserify:
>>>> You do not really need to package it, since it's only related to
>>>> uglify2.x (it has no reverse-dependency)
>>>> I think you can bundle it as a patch along with uglify v2.x.
>> I am no fan of hiding upstream projects by maintaining as bundles in 
>> Debian.
>> If in fact it makes best sense for node-uglify-to-browserify to be 
>> part of UglifyJS2 project, it makes more sense for me to have 
>> upstream merge those projects.
>> Or did I perhaps misunderstand your suggestion?
> You understand correctly. I'm less strict about bundling... i'm using 
> that workaround rarely, though.
> Anyway it doesn't matter here since in fact, uglify-to-browserify is 
> "A transform to make UglifyJS work in browserify".
> I propose we postpone packaging of this module and list it in Suggests 
> for now.


>>>> About node-source-map:
>>>> It build-depends on dryice (>=0.4.8). You can find a pre-release
>>>> package in pkg-javascript/node-dryice.git repository.
>>>> Once it done/uploaded to unstable, we will be able to build 
>>>> source-map.
>>> I can help about that,
>> Great!
>>> but could you find out about the dependency loop:
>>> dryice depends on uglify-js
>> I suspect that such dependency would be only needed only for browser 
>> use, not for use in a Nodejs environment (which includes build 
>> environment for UglifyJS2).  If that's true, I suggest to simply add 
>> hinting as documented here: https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec
> I don't understand how that helps.
> In fact we have a simple
> uglify -> sourcemap+dryice -> uglify
> dependency loop.

Sorry - I was thinking *build*-dependency loop.  You are right, such 
hinting is of no help here.

> We could patch a little dryice so that it doesn't Depends uglify-js 
> but only Recommends or Suggests it. Do i remember well ? would that be 
> enough ?

Sounds good.

Seems the code already warns + returns uncompressed data if uglification 
fails, so possibly it is as simple as hacking the requires check.

...but I'd feel much safer leaving that in your hands :-D

> Related to the point above, it's interesting to note that dryice is a 
> good example of what we could ask upstream to merge back into 
> source-map.

I'll leave that to you too.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature

Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list

Reply via email to