[Pkg-javascript-devel] Debian Javascript Policy

[David Paleino]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 11:20:23 +0200, Jérémy Lal wrote:

> On 15/10/2011 08:21, David Paleino wrote:
> > Hello everybody,
> > I started a first draft, based on the recent emails, of a 'Debian Javascript
> > Policy'. I feel like it's missing lots of things though, so any help is much
> > appreciated.
> > 
> > http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/pkg-javascript/Policy
> 
> Thank you a lot for this.
> 
> Remarks :
> 
> You added a ".js" suffix to the source name of a libjs-foo lib, this does not
> follow current practice. Why wouldn't it be simply "foo" ? See below for
> another proposal.

Because it could be mistaken with other libraries, and adding a ".js" seemed OK
to me. Also, I've seen it used in the repository, I thought it was "agreed"
upon.

Please feel free to improve it :)

> The part where you refer to how node libs (upstream call them modules) should
> be "requireable" is better described in [1] or [2], please put a reference to
> it instead.

ACK, thanks. What I wrote came from the little experience I had :)

http://wiki.debian.org/Javascript/Policy?action=diff&rev2=5&rev1=4

> We still have to choose if using /usr/share/nodejs as a place to put native
> (i mean pure js) node modules is a good idea. It certainly is not a bad one,
> but won't it disturb node users ? They are used to find node modules in
> something like /usr/lib/node.

I wrote that modules should be installed to /usr/lib/nodejs/. I can write
something like "there's currently some discussion about the use
of /usr/share/nodejs/ for arch-independent node modules", if you agree.

> Suggestion :
> 
> I propose to follow python and ruby package naming conventions, which are
> simpler, and in many cases just stick to the upstream name, see [3] but
> please answer here. Those packaging teams are older and more experienced, and
> they certainly choosed those namings for very good reasons. Some of them :
> * libnode-foo is uglier than node-foo.

Not necessarily, it's just habit I think. IMHO lib* conveys better the message
that it's a "development library", which the clueless user shouldn't generally
need to install manually.

> * node-foo is often the upstream name, no difference between source and
> binary package names.

Not really: on npmjs.org I saw all modules called like "foo", not "node-foo".
On the other hand, there are really modules called
"node-foo" (libnode-node-expat, for example).

> * node-foo can contain an executable. Most packages can be used as libs
> (require'able), and some of them provide an executable wrapping them. They
> are often small, especially the executable, so providing two packages
> libnode-foo and foo is not justified. Then we end up with a libnode-foo
> package, containing an executable, which is confusing. I think that is the
> main reason for the ruby team to drop the "lib" prefix. (i'll take some time
> to dig through their mailing list, this move was made this summer).

Ok, this makes sense.

> This would imply renaming many existing javascript packages, so maybe we
> could restrict the naming scheme to node only, instead of js and node.

You mean leaving libjs-* as-is, and changing libnode-* to node-* ? Agreed.

The earlier we do this, the better. The Node ecosystem is still young in
Debian, so better fixing the guidelines now :)

> Could you add a big WORK IN PROGRESS somewhere on the page ?
> It looks like it isn't.

Done.

http://wiki.debian.org/Javascript/Policy?action=diff&rev2=6&rev1=5

> Also should i cc you ?

Nope, I'm subscribed to the list :)

Kindly,
David

-- 
 . ''`.   Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
 : :'  : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
 `. `'`  GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://deb.li/dapal
   `-   2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/attachments/20111015/8b0915bd/attachment.pgp>