[Pkg-javascript-devel] ?= =?utf-8?q? RFS: node-js-beautify 1.7.5+dfsg-2

[Xavier]

Le 01/02/2019 à 18:52, Paolo Greppi a écrit :
> Il 01/02/19 16:59, Xavier ha scritto:
>> Le Vendredi, Février 01, 2019 16:49 CET, Jonas Smedegaard <jonas at jones.dk> a écrit: 
>>  
>>> Quoting Xavier (2019-02-01 16:30:01)
>>>> Le 01/02/2019 à 15:34, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
>>>>> Quoting Xavier (2019-02-01 15:16:39)
>>>>>> Le 01/02/2019 à 14:57, Paolo Greppi a écrit :
>>>>>>> Hi, I have prepared an update to node-js-beautify to close this bug quickly:
>>>>>>> http://bugs.debian.org/888903
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have opted for not updating it to 1.8.9 because ATM its build-rdepends node-postcss is at version 6.0.23 which we know work fine with js-beautify 1.7.5.
>>>>>>> When we update node-postcss we can update node-js-beautify as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please someone sponsor the upload:
>>>>>>> https://salsa.debian.org/js-team/node-js-beautify
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paolo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I added minimal test during build. Is it OK for the team to rename
>>>>>> js-beautify to js-beautify2 ?
>>>>>>> If you mean the executable, then please simply avoid installing instead: > > We can then consider later - without stress - if needed at all and if so > > which of them is more suitably renamed).
>>>>>>> If you mean package name then not now, then please don't: That will end > > in NEW queue which is too risky at this late date!
>>>>>>>  - Jonas
>>>>> See changes, Paolo modified only /usr/bin/js-beautify to
>>>> /usr/bin/js-beautify2 of course
>>>
>>> And I say please don't do that!
>>>
>>>  - Jonas
>>
>> I fully agree with you, that's why I put this discussion here ;-)
> 
> node-js-beautify installs three binaries:
> https://salsa.debian.org/js-team/node-js-beautify/blob/master/debian/links
> as per package.json:
> https://salsa.debian.org/js-team/node-js-beautify/blob/master/package.json#L6
> 
> IMHO it makes sense for the node-* package to match as closely as possible the node module on npm
> since we can't use /usr/bin/js-beautify which is taken, I renamed it !
> 
> BTW the one I renamed:
> 
> cat /usr/bin/js-beautify2 
> #!/usr/bin/env node
> 
> var cli = require('../lib/cli');
> cli.interpret();
> 
> is different from the one included in python-jsbeautifier:
> 
> cat /usr/bin/js-beautify
> #!/usr/bin/python3
> #
> # Stub script to run jsbeautifier
> #
> import sys
> from jsbeautifier import main
> sys.exit(main())
> 
> upstream offers two alternative implementations (JS and python), so someone could legitimately decide to use one or the other
> 
> node-js-beautify has 6 popcon users, I bet the other two are also subscribed to this list so don't be shy !
> 
> Paolo

The best way, like said Jérémy, would be to use alternative mechanism,
but it supposes to synchronize changes with python packages.