[Pkg-javascript-devel] Call for review: should.js packages

[Emilien Klein]

Hi Leo,

2014-04-18 16:03 GMT+02:00 Leo Iannacone <l3on at ubuntu.com>:
> Hi all,
>
> someone could sponsor me this package:
>
> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/should.js.git

A few remarks:
- d/watch: have you thought about using Debian's Github redir service [0]?
[0] http://githubredir.debian.net/
- d/rules: why override_dh_auto_test? Can't the tests in Makefile be
run? It seems mildly strange to not run the test provided with a
software who has a goal to "keeps your test code clean" ;)
- d/copyright: not a big issue, but you realize that licensing your
changes under GPL-3 while the library is Expat-licensed, any changes
or future patches you make can't go back upstream? If that's a
conscious decision, that's fine, otherwise you could consider
licensing your package same-as-upstream.
- Is node-should.lintian-overrides strictly needed, or is it indeed
containing an external library that you should rather depend on? In
particular, what is lib/browser/ext/jquery.js since it doesn't look
like a full copy of jQuery?
- Regarding your latest commit 719083c "do not install should.min.js -
agreed with debian-js team": this is a long discussion, the short
version is that you should repackage the upstream tarball to remove
the included .min.js file, and can (not forced, but nice to the end
user) recreate the minified js file using uglifyjs (which you
apparently added in dff2125d9f and reverted in 71c32aa01e4. Why?)
[NOTE TO THE TEAM: who can update the team's policy page to make the
repackaging policy clear? It's not efficient to re-discuss this topic
for each new package ;)]
- You could add the History.md file as a changelog
- Can examples/runner.js be included as an example?

Except for the repackaging, package overall looks good.
   +Emilien