[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#794890: Bug#794890: Bug#794890: status update

[Sruthi Chandran]

On 10/27/2017 01:09 AM, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> 
> 
> 2017-10-26 21:25 GMT+02:00 Jérémy Lal <kapouer at melix.org
> <mailto:kapouer at melix.org>>:
> 
> 
> 
>     2017-10-26 21:03 GMT+02:00 Sruthi Chandran <srud at disroot.org
>     <mailto:srud at disroot.org>>:
> 
>         On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 10:49:29 +0200 Jérémy Lal <kapouer at melix.org
>         <mailto:kapouer at melix.org>> wrote:
>         > 2017-06-13 10:11 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Rossi
>         <alexandre.rossi at gmail.com <mailto:alexandre.rossi at gmail.com>>:
>         >
>         > > Hi,
>         > >
>         > > Any status update on this? Did the effort trying to release with
>         > > embedded deps hit a wall? How can I help?
>         > >
>         > >
>         > Right now npm 5 depends indirectly on both "request" and "got"
>         modules,
>         > which are doing exactly the same thing. Maintaining this
>         requires an
>         amount
>         > of forgiveness i don't have right now.
>         >
>         > Anyway here's what you would want to do:
>         > - start from an empty debian/copyright file (to avoid old dfsg
>         repackagings)
>         > - import new upstream tarball
>         > - populate debian/copyright (including everything in
>         node_modules as
>         well),
>         > it shouldn't be that difficult.
>         >
>         > With this approach the only maintenance burden will be to update
>         > debian/copyright.
>         > Next step will be up to ftpmasters to decide if it's okay to
>         bundle
>         > everything in
>         > that particular case.
>         >
>         > Jérémy
> 
>         I was thinking of packaging npm (by packaging individual modules)
>         working full-time for around one month. I plan to launch a
>         crowd-funding
>         campaign similar to ones launched for packaging grunt[1] and
>         gulp[2].
>         Before going ahead with that, wanted to know the status of your
>         plan of
>         packaging npm. Is your plan still on or shall I go ahead with my
>         plan?
> 
> 
>     My plan depends on me being available in some parallel universe.
>     So YES please please please go ahead, may debian force be with you.
>     I might provide some help for technical issues. Or not, depending on
>     availability.
> 
> 
> Also note that besides usual packaging needs (like generating
> documentation),
> there is one trick in npm debian package: the global npmrc that contains
> prefix=/usr/local
> which in turn ensures
> npm install -g <module>
> goes to the right place.
> 
> Upstream is deaf to the argument that /usr is not the right prefix,
> and to the argument that there should be a well-known global path
> for npm configuration (other than /usr/etc/npmrc).
> 
> The problem then is that
> npm i -g npm
> need a manual intervention to make sure that
> /usr/local/lib/node_modules/npm/npmrc
> is installed and contains prefix=/usr/local
> Without it, the default prefix of npm when installed in /usr/local
> is /usr/lib
> which is wrong and not writable of course.
> 
> Jérémy
> 

Thanks. Will keep in mind when I reach there.

I have launched the crowdfunding campaign [1].

Going ahead with the plan, I might need help with technical issues and
hope to get support from the Javascript team.  Help with packaging is
also most welcome.

[1]
https://www.generosity.com/fundraising/update-npm-package-in-debian/x/13540574

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 858 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/attachments/20171027/66a1d99a/attachment.sig>