Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] packages rejected
Le jeudi 11 septembre 2014 à 22:36 -0700, Andrew Kelley a écrit : On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Andrew Kelley superjo...@gmail.com wrote: node-connect-static i know it's easier said than done, but can you consider doing a PR to serve-static with the feature(s) you're missing ? if not, then yes, bundle it inside groovebasin. I hadn't considered this. I will go ahead and make a pull request. I have worked with one of the maintainers in the past, so maybe they will consider it. I thought about this some more, and I think that I would rather not do it. As an upstream author, I think the packages are distinct. In particular, serve-static has these dependencies: serve-static (1.6.1) ├─ parseurl (~1.3.0) ├─ send (0.9.1) ├─ escape-html (1.0.1) └─ utils-merge (1.0.0) I don't want to drag these dependencies in. Additionally, serve-static and connect-static have different use cases and implementations; if they were merged then they would share no code. I think they really are distinct packages. However, as an alternative to bundling, I could see this being something like nodemodules-connect-middleware or something like that. But maybe bundling is fine since nothing else depends on connect-static as of yet. I understand your objections. I am not convinced a package bundling arbitrary connect middlewares would be good, there are so many of them with wildly different purposes. I'd rather do a nodemodules-static-middleware - it seems there are several potential candidates that could go in it: http://eirikb.github.io/nipster/#static middleware But again, most of them are not so short and there's no real point in not having them in their own debian package. This bundling story is tricky and poses more problems than it solves. What does it solve, again ? 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] packages rejected
On 12 September 2014 10:28, Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org wrote: This bundling story is tricky and poses more problems than it solves. What does it solve, again ? The biggest objection (as far as I remember) came out from d-devel ML and was: Hey, these too small libraries have more package-metadata than lines of code That was true, see [0][1]. In this case, why don't nodemodules-connect-goodies ? Anyway.. If we go ahead with those big packages, we may need to develop something (auto-scripts/plugins/wrappers/whatever for debhelper) in order to correctly track upstream, get the libraries updated and facilitate the maintaining for those big packages. A web service (e.g.) or . I don't know ... ideas? L. [0] - http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/node-escape-html.git/tree/index.js [1] - http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-javascript/node-parseurl.git/tree/index.js ___ 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] packages rejected
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org wrote: Moving to pkg-javascript Le jeudi 11 septembre 2014 à 10:03 -0700, Andrew Kelley a écrit : node-mv nodemodules-fs Looks like this is not started yet, so I will start it. node-connect-static i know it's easier said than done, but can you consider doing a PR to serve-static with the feature(s) you're missing ? if not, then yes, bundle it inside groovebasin. I hadn't considered this. I will go ahead and make a pull request. I have worked with one of the maintainers in the past, so maybe they will consider it. After https://github.com/andrewrk/groovebasin/commit/c97a6ae74c46599ff3dfa7992f6e89593501e3f5 groovebasin no longer depends on node-prr. ha ok, but level will anyway, no ? I meant that even following the chain, node-prr is not depended on at all: leveldown (1.0.0) ├─ abstract-leveldown (~2.0.0) │ └─ xtend (~3.0.0) ├─ bindings (~1.2.1) ├─ nan (~1.3.0) └─ fast-future (~1.0.0) the prr dependency came in via level-packager, which groove basin completely avoids now. ___ 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] packages rejected
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Andrew Kelley superjo...@gmail.com wrote: node-connect-static i know it's easier said than done, but can you consider doing a PR to serve-static with the feature(s) you're missing ? if not, then yes, bundle it inside groovebasin. I hadn't considered this. I will go ahead and make a pull request. I have worked with one of the maintainers in the past, so maybe they will consider it. I thought about this some more, and I think that I would rather not do it. As an upstream author, I think the packages are distinct. In particular, serve-static has these dependencies: serve-static (1.6.1) ├─ parseurl (~1.3.0) ├─ send (0.9.1) ├─ escape-html (1.0.1) └─ utils-merge (1.0.0) I don't want to drag these dependencies in. Additionally, serve-static and connect-static have different use cases and implementations; if they were merged then they would share no code. I think they really are distinct packages. However, as an alternative to bundling, I could see this being something like nodemodules-connect-middleware or something like that. But maybe bundling is fine since nothing else depends on connect-static as of yet. ___ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
