[Pkg-javascript-devel] npm packaging

[Jérémy Lal]

On 13/10/2011 19:14, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 11-10-13 at 02:41pm, Jérémy Lal wrote:
>> On 13/10/2011 14:11, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> Worse: Source contains a binary executable.  Even though the 
>>> accompanying notes state that the source is DFSG-free, but said 
>>> sources are not included and we cannot know for sure if they are in 
>>> fact used. Also it is statically linked which means it pulls in code 
>>> from other sources which is certainly not available.  Package should 
>>> be repackaged with deps/ subdir stripped.
>>
>> Indeed, repackaging is not an option.
> 
> _not_ an option?!?  I suspect that was a negation typo...

I meant in that case where we have that suspicious binary in deps/
not the general case, of course.


>>> Non-free TrueType font Gubblebum Blocky is included below html/*/.
>>
>> I agree on simply removing the font file, it won't hurt.
>>
>>> Also, all that documentation below html/ sems autogenerated using 
>>> ronnjs.  So probably html/ should be stripped and instead generated 
>>> at build time (with options to avoid that non-free font as needed).
>>
>> Actually it's html and man pages that are generated from markdown 
>> using ronnjs.
> 
> Yes, that's what I meant above: Source is the markdown files - the html 
> files shipped upstream is generated code which preferrably we should not 
> consume but regenerate.
> 
> 
>> And i'm the upstream developer of ronnjs. But i have no time left 
>> right now to take care of packaging it. Later ?
> 
> Oh, you are upstream.  Cool!
> 
> I would actually recommend to try find someone else to package your code 
> since you are upstream - to ensure a minimum of code review.
> 
> I am pretty busy at the moment: take-off monday of a 3-month journey in 
> Asia: http://wiki.jones.dk/DebianAsia2011

Cool. Send picture :)

> Since Node packages are often pretty simple to package and maintain, I 
> will try find some helpers for it on my journey.  I am also a candidate 
> myself.

That'd be nice. Ronnjs depends itself on two other modules (opts, markdown).


>> Also, even if there generated at build time, they are not supposed to 
>> be removed from tarball, for no DFSG reason.
> 
> Source repackaging is generally allowed.  Ideally upstream tarball is 
> sane, and then we should preserve it as-is to ease e.g. SHA-1 checksum 
> verification across distros.  But when we do mess with source due to 
> DFSG violations, we can just as well clean up other things, e.g. 
> superfluous autogenerated code or superfluous convenience copies of 
> source better provided as separate packages.

I agree that removing html/ and man/ is all right,
and slightly disagree about node_modules : without them the orig tarball is
useless, but apparently not against policy 6.7.8.2.
It will save much time to exclude it, so ok.


>>> I notice a link to a youtube video in the regression tests.  Not 
>>> sure, but if any regression tests go online during build, they 
>>> should be disabled or patched to not do so.
>>
>> I did not run the tests yet, so i don't know if it's possible to run 
>> them during the build. I'd prefer doing that step later, too.
> 
> It was just a vague suspicion, so no concrete action needed - so let's 
> just keep it in mind. :-)
> 
> 
>> Do you agree on excluding :
>> * deps/
>> * html/*/GubbleBum-Blocky.ttf
> 
> Well, that would also involve...:
> 
>   * track copyright and licensing of node_modules/
>   * track copyright and licensing of html/
> 
> ...both of which is of no real benefit to Debian.
> 
> Packaging ronnjs is directly beneficial to our users. :-)
> 
> Packaging those other modules is indirectly beneficial to our users, as 
> then they are each tracked for new upstream releases and their 
> regression tests are done during build.

Debian can't avoid octofurcation :)

Jérémy