Le lundi 16 juin 2014 à 11:45 +0200, Daniel Pocock a écrit : > > Looking at > > https://wiki.debian.org/Javascript/Policy > > there are some ambiguities in point 4 (*should* ship a /minified/ > version for each script, generated at build time (use /uglifyjs/ to this > purpose) ) > > > - a package should /only/ ship a minified version of a script, or it > should ship both minified and unminified or it is at the maintainers > discretion?
I believe it is good practice to ship both: the unminified version being mandatory, and the minified version optional. Who's ok with stating this in the javascript "policy" (which is more of a "packaging practice" than a policy) ? > - naming convention for minified scripts - a script minified by the > packaging process should have a .min.js extension? Should all > maintainers use the same extension for this purpose? Should there be a > symlink foo.js -> foo.min.js as in some packages? The .min.js suffix is good to me - not sure it's a good idea to force it, though. The foo.js -> foo.min.js symlink should be present only in cases where the minified file isn't built and the non-minified file is given instead (but people expect some .min.js file anyway ? not sure of that). > > (maybe non-minified js files could go in a libjs-foo-dev package?) Many websites have on-the-fly minification of assets, it'd be weird to depend on -dev packages. But maybe it's not a bad idea after all ? > - the reference to uglifyjs could also mention closure-compiler Feel free to update the wiki ! Jérémy. _______________________________________________ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
