[Pkg-javascript-devel] Javascript team policy and rejection of node-three binary package

[Pirate Praveen]

On ചൊവ്വ 06 മാർച്ച് 2018 07:57 വൈകു, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Simon is asking the same questions as I was earlier.  Sorry for
> posting before reading the whole thread.
> 
> Is this going to be common ?  The Javascript ecosystem has large
> numbers of small packages - but do they mostly contain just JS
> libraries or do they generally all contain command line utilities
> too ?

Libraries are majority, but there are many command line utilities too
(mocha, uglifyjs, handlebars etc).

> If only a much smaller number of upstream packages have command line
> utilities, then we could have the number of JS .deb packages that need
> to be maintained by putting the node and browser files into the same
> package.

I think the following change to point 5 of javascript policy [1] has
consensus now.

Change,

5. should generate a node-foo binary package if the script is usable
also for Nodejs

to

5. should provide node-foo and install package.json in
/usr/lib/nodejs/foo if the script is usable also for Nodejs. If script
includes a command line tool, it should generate foo (node-foo in case
of a name conflict) binary package and declare dependency on nodejs. A
separate binary package should be generated if the script requires a
newer version of nodejs than available in testing to facilitate proper
testing migration.

[1] https://wiki.debian.org/Javascript/Policy


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/attachments/20180309/158f19a6/attachment.sig>