Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] browserify-lite
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
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] browserify-lite
Le vendredi 03 octobre 2014 à 01:06 -0700, Andrew Kelley a écrit : > On Oct 2, 2014 11:49 PM, "Jérémy Lal" 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
Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] browserify-lite
On Oct 2, 2014 11:49 PM, "Jérémy Lal" 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
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
