Re: which JavaScript dependencies really need a separate package?

2016-12-19 Thread Paul Wise 
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:

> - For those JavaScript libs that have complicated build systems that are
> not (yet) supported on Debian, is it reasonable for a package like
> homer-ui to simply include the intermediate product of the build, just
> before it is minified, into the Debian source package?  This may not be
> the "preferred form of modification", but it is not difficult to make
> modifications to it.

As well as what other folks mentioned in the thread, this is probably
unsupportable by the security team.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Re: which JavaScript dependencies really need a separate package?

2016-12-19 Thread Ben Finney 
Daniel Pocock  writes:

> - While looking through the list, I noticed that some of them (or at
> least files with similar names) are also included within other web
> packages.

Those packages would be similarly buggy in Debian, if so.

> What is the latest opinion on when JavaScript libs can be included in
> a web application package?

In addition to the FTP Master position statement discussed elsewhere in
this thread, there is also the principle that separate works with their
own separate release schedules should not be in a single Debian source
package.

-- 
 \ “Are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “I think so, Brain, but |
  `\why would anyone want a depressed tongue?” —_Pinky and The |
_o__)   Brain_ |
Ben Finney

Re: which JavaScript dependencies really need a separate package?

2016-12-19 Thread Sean Whitton 
Hello Daniel,

There has been extensive discussion of this on debian-devel over the
past few months.  Though it was mainly about nodejs libs, the discussion
applies to libjs-* packages too.

The outcome of the discussions:

- the advantages of packaging these libs separately outweigh the
  disadvantages

- you must package the "complicated build systems" to which you refer.
  The ftp-masters have been explicit about this.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: which JavaScript dependencies really need a separate package?

2016-12-19 Thread Joerg Jaspert 
On 14526 March 1977, Daniel Pocock wrote:

> - For those JavaScript libs that have complicated build systems that are
> not (yet) supported on Debian, is it reasonable for a package like
> homer-ui to simply include the intermediate product of the build, just
> before it is minified, into the Debian source package?  This may not be
> the "preferred form of modification", but it is not difficult to make
> modifications to it.

Thats simple to answer by reading
https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2016/10/msg00066.html

What you proposed is not source (first point), so has no place in main.
You may be able to follow the second point.

> - The FTP masters have also expressed concern about the standalone
> packaging of very small[3] JavaScript dependencies.  Is that still the
> same for stretch and beyond?

Small packages are bad. Sometimes they may make sense, sometimes another
environment sucks really bad and the best way for us is to deal with it.

-- 
bye, Joerg

Re: which JavaScript dependencies really need a separate package?

2016-12-19 Thread Paul Gevers 
Hi Daniel,

On 19-12-16 09:30, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> - For those JavaScript libs that have complicated build systems that are
> not (yet) supported on Debian, is it reasonable for a package like
> homer-ui to simply include the intermediate product of the build, just
> before it is minified, into the Debian source package?  This may not be
> the "preferred form of modification", but it is not difficult to make
> modifications to it.

The ftp-masters have been very clear on this¹.

> - The FTP masters have also expressed concern about the standalone
> packaging of very small[3] JavaScript dependencies.  Is that still the
> same for stretch and beyond?

And have accepted that having these small packages is the price that has
to be paid for their firm statement.

Paul
¹ https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2016/10/msg00066.html



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

which JavaScript dependencies really need a separate package?

2016-12-19 Thread Daniel Pocock 


I had a look at packaging homer-ui (ITP[1]) for HOMER[2].  It is a
powerful web application based on AngularJS for troubleshooting SIP
applications.  It is particularly useful for troubleshooting many of the
SIP products we include in Debian and also for learning about SIP, SDP
and RTP.

There are a lot of JavaScript libraries included, most from the
AngularJS world, and it is unlikely I would personally make a package of
every one that doesn't already exist in Debian.

I opened an RFP bug for each and used those to block the HOMER ITP bug
so I will see if other people package any of the dependencies for other
projects.  If the list of outstanding things becomes smaller I may step
in to get the remaining ones packaged.

- While looking through the list, I noticed that some of them (or at
least files with similar names) are also included within other web
packages.  What is the latest opinion on when JavaScript libs can be
included in a web application package?

- For those JavaScript libs that have complicated build systems that are
not (yet) supported on Debian, is it reasonable for a package like
homer-ui to simply include the intermediate product of the build, just
before it is minified, into the Debian source package?  This may not be
the "preferred form of modification", but it is not difficult to make
modifications to it.

- The FTP masters have also expressed concern about the standalone
packaging of very small[3] JavaScript dependencies.  Is that still the
same for stretch and beyond?

Regards,

Daniel



1. https://bugs.debian.org/837662
2. http://sipcapture.org/
3.
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/2015-June/010692.html