Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] build node-i18next with webpack instead or rollup?

Le 19-10-12 à 14 h 12, Pirate Praveen a écrit : > > > Now autopkgtest is failing, > > autopkgtest [23:40:13]: test require: [--- > /usr/share/nodejs/i18next/i18next.js:124 _export(_export.S + _export.F * > !_descriptors, 'Object', { defineProperty: _objectDp.f }); ^

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] build node-i18next with webpack instead or rollup?

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 15:21, Nicolas Mora wrote: Le 2019-10-09 13:02, Xavier a écrit : No but it's a git-buildpackage bug. Commit the good file using: $ pristine-tar commit ../node-i18next-17.0.18.tar.gz upstream/17.0.18 Then push to salsa (using `salsa push` which pushes all what is

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] build node-i18next with webpack instead or rollup?

Le 2019-10-09 13:02, Xavier a écrit : No but it's a git-buildpackage bug. Commit the good file using: $ pristine-tar commit ../node-i18next-17.0.18.tar.gz upstream/17.0.18 Then push to salsa (using `salsa push` which pushes all what is needed) Got it, thanks. Also, I could push force in

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] build node-i18next with webpack instead or rollup?

Le 2019-10-09 09:36, Pirate Praveen a écrit : I guess one of the gitlab acl bugs/features as you have maintainer access there, if you wish you can make master branch as unprotected and force push. But I think lets leave it as it is. I tried to find out how to change it but so far no luck,

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] build node-i18next with webpack instead or rollup?

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 07:08, Nicolas Mora wrote: Le 19-10-09 à 02 h 47, Pirate Praveen a écrit : Well, if you had not pushed to js-team, squashing makes sense as it require force push. It is not recommended to force push to team repo after it is published. In this case since we have

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] build node-i18next with webpack instead or rollup?

Le 19-10-09 à 02 h 47, Pirate Praveen a écrit : > > > Well, if you had not pushed to js-team, squashing makes sense as it require > force push. It is not recommended to force push to team repo after it is > published. In this case since we have not uploaded it, you can squash and > force push

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] build node-i18next with webpack instead or rollup?

On 2019, ഒക്‌ടോബർ 9 3:23:33 AM IST, Nicolas Mora wrote: >although I didn't squash the commits in the master branch, only pushed >as it is in my personnal repo. Should I rebase all the commits in the >master branch from the start? Well, if you had not pushed to js-team, squashing makes sense as

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] build node-i18next with webpack instead or rollup?

Hello, Le 19-10-08 à 03 h 57, Pirate Praveen a écrit : > > * You can change pkg-js-tools dependency to (>= 0.8.13~) and then remove > debian/install file. > done > * You remove unnecessary comments like #override.. #export... in rules. > done > * It is better to remove

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] build node-i18next with webpack instead or rollup?

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 18:32, Nicolas Mora wrote: Indeed it's just warning messages, I've read the build log too fast, the error was because of invalid tests. The upstream package uses karma to run tests so I had to disable testing in the package build. I let a note as a reminder for the

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] build node-i18next with webpack instead or rollup?

Le 19-10-07 à 11 h 41, Pirate Praveen a écrit : >> If I apply this change, I got a lot of errors like this: >> >> (!) Circular dependency: >> ../../../usr/lib/nodejs/core-js/library/modules/_export.js -> >> ../../../usr/lib/nodejs/core-js/library/modules/_hide.js -> >>

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] build node-i18next with webpack instead or rollup?

On 2019, ഒക്‌ടോബർ 7 7:17:30 PM IST, Nicolas Mora wrote: >Hi, > >Le 19-10-07 à 04 h 02, Pirate Praveen a écrit : >> >> See >> >https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/rails/blob/master/debian/patches/0002-disable-uglify-in-activestorage-rollup-config-js.patch >> to pass system paths to

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] build node-i18next with webpack instead or rollup?

Hi, Le 19-10-07 à 04 h 02, Pirate Praveen a écrit : > > See > https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/rails/blob/master/debian/patches/0002-disable-uglify-in-activestorage-rollup-config-js.patch > to pass system paths to rollup-plugin-node-resolve instead of copying > whole /usr/lib/nodejs. > > Pass

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] build node-i18next with webpack instead or rollup?

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 22:47, Nicolas Mora wrote: Hello JS team, I was able to make a package for i18next here: Thanks to Pirate's feedback, I now build the bundle with rollup, but the minified bundle is created with

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] build node-i18next with webpack instead or rollup?

Hello JS team, I was able to make a package for i18next here: https://salsa.debian.org/babelouest-guest/node-i18next Thanks to Pirate's feedback, I now build the bundle with rollup, but the minified bundle is created with uglifyjs.terser For some reason, lintian seems to be failing right now, I

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] build node-i18next with webpack instead or rollup?

Hello, Le 19-10-06 à 09 h 21, Pirate Praveen a écrit : > > > You can just patch out rollup-plugin-terser usage and use > uglifyjs.terser command line. > Thanks for the tip, I'm trying to use rollup to build the package but so far no luck: I removed rollup-plugin-terser from the

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] build node-i18next with webpack instead or rollup?

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 08:57, Nicolas Mora wrote: Hello, I'm trying to package i18next for Debian [1]. The upstream dev use rollup to build the i18next.js file with rollup-plugin-terser. Unfortunately, rollup-plugin-terser isn't in Debian yet and requires a lot of unpackaged dependencies.