[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#622628: Bug#622628: Bug#622628: Bug#622628: npm no longer works

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On 12-03-06 at 06:32pm, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> On 06/03/2012 18:06, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > On 12-03-06 at 05:40pm, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> >> On 06/03/2012 17:14, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> >>> I might (hopefully...) have time to help, and I will need this. Is 
> >>> there any roadmap on what is missing to get an updated npm 
> >>> package?
> >>
> >> There is :
> >>
> >> * package dependencies that are in node_modules
> >> * make sure the license is free (MIT +no-false-attribs)
> >>
> >> I update regularly the collab-maint git repository, and npm 1.1.4 
> >> package built from it is usable.
> > 
> > Related to that: Please don't update in git the copyright_hints file 
> > if changes not reflected in copyirhgt file.  The very point of that 
> > hints file is to track changes.
> 
> In the case of npm, i intended to ignore changes in ./node_modules 
> since what's inside must be either reviewed or excluded from tarball.
> 
> I usually check all new files, and differences, manually.
> I am not perfect at this, though.

Ah, come on - this is bigger than nitpicking, so not about perfection: 
Silencing warnings before solving the underlying problem is wrong IMO. 
Makes sense to ignore tracking excluded parts only when truly excluded, 
not when deciding to exlude in a future packaging release.


> > Also, please do not blindly bump format hint in first line of 
> > copyright file.  License field is not allowed to contain spaces in 
> > final release of the format.
> 
> Lintian warnings about copyright format let me naively think the 
> syntax was strictly checked...

Lintian should only ever be considered to help catch rough edges you 
might have otherwise missed, i.e. helps improve quality of packaging but 
not to be trusted to _assure_ high quality packaging.


> > Oh, and that fork or Expat license seems to have a flaw: It is not 
> > clear whether it talks only about the original author or any 
> > subsequent author.  I would recommend upstream to not try hack 
> > legalese but instead simply document clearly a friendly _request_ to 
> > do do same as now codified in license.
> 
> I will forward that remark and recommandation to Isaac.
> He's hard to convince for now.

Yeah, I got the impression that he holds strong principles.  I tried 
elaborate a bit, hope it makes sense also to him. :-)


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/attachments/20120306/7ae7ceff/attachment.pgp>