Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] browserify-lite

2018-04-05 Thread Pirate Praveen
On വ്യാഴം 05 ഏപ്രിൽ 2018 03:01 വൈകു, Michael Meskes wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> when packaging the latest version of browserpass I noticed that one
> file generated by browserify-lite does not work correctly while
> browserify-lite claims to have not seen any error. Upstream provides a
> file that is process by browserify and that one works.
> 
> Any idea where is might come from? Or how to debug?

browserify-lite can do only very basic browserification (it does not
implement all nodejs only apis). You could use webpack or rollup instead
of browserify.

See https://wiki.debian.org/Javascript/Nodejs#Using_build_tools_like_grunt



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

[Pkg-javascript-devel] browserify-lite

2018-04-05 Thread Michael Meskes
Hi all,

when packaging the latest version of browserpass I noticed that one
file generated by browserify-lite does not work correctly while
browserify-lite claims to have not seen any error. Upstream provides a
file that is process by browserify and that one works.

Any idea where is might come from? Or how to debug?

If you want to have a look, the git archive on salsa is up-to-date, the
file in question is chrome/background.browserify.js.

Michael
-- 
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org
Jabber: michael at xmpp dot meskes dot org
VfL Borussia! Força Barça! SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL

-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] browserify-lite

2014-10-03 Thread Jérémy Lal
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 ?
Would it be better to use uglifyjs ast parser ?

Jérémy.



___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] browserify-lite

2014-10-03 Thread Andrew Kelley
On Oct 2, 2014 11:49 PM, Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org 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?

 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.
___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] browserify-lite

2014-10-03 Thread Jérémy Lal
Le vendredi 03 octobre 2014 à 01:06 -0700, Andrew Kelley a écrit :
 On Oct 2, 2014 11:49 PM, Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org 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
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

[Pkg-javascript-devel] browserify-lite

2014-10-02 Thread Andrew Kelley
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
___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel