praveen at debian.org
Sun Feb 25 09:31:48 UTC 2018
On ഞായര് 25 ഫെബ്രുവരി 2018 02:46 വൈകു, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 02:00:37PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>> On ശനി 24 ഫെബ്രുവരി 2018 08:43 വൈകു, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>>> On ശനി 24 ഫെബ്രുവരി 2018 04:30 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote:
>>>> Author: Bastian Blank
>>>> Version: 80+dfsg2-2
>>>> Timestamp: 2017-12-15 15:15:24.424738+00:00
>>>> REJECT no need to have with one just two symlinks in the node.js path
>>> But we need package.json installed in default nodejs path
>>> (/usr/lib/nodejs) for node tools like webpack to find these files. It
>>> just adds extra custom code to make these files visible to webpack which
>>> I'd really like to avoid. Nodejs modules follow a common standard and
>>> having to add custom code to other packages is not good in my opinion.
> If you have one user installing 10MB of code, you maybe waste this 10MB.
> If you have 1M users download packages files with this 1k entry, you
> waste 1GB every time.
Does other ftp masters agree with this assessment of considering the
size of the package as the only criteria to accept or reject a package?
I don't agree with forcing other contributors to do extra, non standard,
hacks instead of following the standards were applicable.
node-three is the standard way for every node tools including webpack to
find this package. Having to replicate this structure for every
depending package is not acceptable.
I have not objected to every rejection, where it made sense I have
already embedded some modules (is-svg, unique-slug for example, and
switching to a embed first and package on second dependency approach in
general), but I don't agree with this case.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 862 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature