[Pkg-javascript-devel] Is it worth packaging node-setimmediate or not?

[Tim Retout]

On 24 August 2014 23:22, Jérémy Lal <kapouer at melix.org> wrote:
> You should tell upstream pump.io to switch to the not deprecated lib.

Okay, I've filed https://github.com/e14n/pump.io/issues/1049 and will
do so for any others I come across.

>> It occurs to me that the polyfill might be useful in browsers, so it's
>> probably worth packaging as libjs-setimmediate, but I don't need it
>> for that right now.
>
> It boils down to "do browserify use it ?" ?

I'm new at Javascript packaging, so I'm completely ignorant of why
that's the case. :)  I know that setimmediate has comments about
supporting browserify environments, but I don't see it listed as a
dependency in the package.json:

https://github.com/substack/node-browserify/blob/master/package.json

>> Quite a few npm packages seem to depend on setimmediate, so is it
>> worth packaging just so that the dependencies can be fulfilled?  Or is
>> it better to patch out the calls to require("setimmediate") in the
>> dependent packages?
>
> That's what we're doing for
> require('readable-stream')
>
> In fact it'd avoid us patches to provide some modules in a bundle we are
> talking about on pkg-javascript.

I think until I hear otherwise, I'll patch out the calls and leave
setimmediate for that bundle, then.

Thanks,

-- 
Tim Retout <diocles at debian.org>