[Pkg-javascript-devel] packages rejected

[Jérémy Lal]

Le jeudi 11 septembre 2014 à 22:36 -0700, Andrew Kelley a écrit :
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Andrew Kelley <superjoe30 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > node-connect-static
> >>
> >> i know it's easier said than done, but can you consider doing a PR to
> >> serve-static with the feature(s) you're missing ?
> >>
> >> if not, then yes, bundle it inside groovebasin.
> >
> >
> > I hadn't considered this. I will go ahead and make a pull request. I have
> > worked with one of the maintainers in the past, so maybe they will consider
> > it.
> >
> 
> I thought about this some more, and I think that I would rather not do it.
> As an upstream author, I think the packages are distinct. In particular,
>  serve-static has these dependencies:
> 
> serve-static (1.6.1)
> ├─ parseurl (~1.3.0)
> ├─ send (0.9.1)
> ├─ escape-html (1.0.1)
> └─ utils-merge (1.0.0)
> 
> I don't want to drag these dependencies in. Additionally, serve-static and
> connect-static have different use cases and implementations; if they were
> merged then they would share no code. I think they really are distinct
> packages.
> 
> However, as an alternative to bundling, I could see this being something
> like nodemodules-connect-middleware or something like that. But maybe
> bundling is fine since nothing else depends on connect-static as of yet.

I understand your objections.
I am not convinced a package bundling arbitrary connect middlewares
would be good, there are so many of them with wildly different purposes.
I'd rather do a "nodemodules-static-middleware" - it seems there are
several potential candidates that could go in it:
http://eirikb.github.io/nipster/#static middleware

But again, most of them are not so short and there's no real point in
not having them in their own debian package.

This bundling story is tricky and poses more problems than it solves.
What does it solve, again ?

Jérémy.