Le vendredi 03 octobre 2014 à 01:06 -0700, Andrew Kelley a écrit : > On Oct 2, 2014 11:49 PM, "Jérémy Lal" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Le jeudi 02 octobre 2014 à 20:57 -0700, Andrew Kelley a écrit : > > > To provide a possible alternative for upstream projects which depend on > > > browserify, which is a heavy dependency dragging many things along with > it, > > > I have created a module called browserify-lite: > > > > > > https://github.com/andrewrk/browserify-lite > > > > > > My question, should I package this module for Debian? Or is it *too* > > > "lite"? :-) > > > > > > Groove Basin already depends on it for its build system: > > > > https://github.com/andrewrk/groovebasin/commit/174af756e1dc2ca148e10a8848fb7db83b100378 > > > > Great ! > > What modifications are required to port a build script using browserify > > to browserify-lite ? > > It depends on how complicated the usage of browserify is. If it is very > simple, then it might make sense to use browserify-lite, anything even > slightly advanced and we would be better off packaging the real browserify. > > Anything in particular you're interested in?
Only building libjs-* files - i think it falls into the "very simple" category for many of them ! I opened an issue requesting a little more documentation for browserify-lite. > > Would it be better to use uglifyjs ast parser ? > > Possibly. The tokenizer I coded up should probably be fine, but maybe since > we already have uglifyjs packaged it would make sense to use that. fine, thank you for this Jérémy _______________________________________________ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
