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

[Jérémy Lal]

Le ven. 1 févr. 2019 à 18:52, Paolo Greppi <paolo.greppi at libpf.com> 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 !
>

The problem here with distributing an executable under another name,
is that it will give everyone (distributors and users) a lot of work to come
back to the "right" name later:
the workaround is worse than the problem itself.

If the python package does not distribute html-beautify or css-beautify,
then you can let the js package distribute them.
In this particular case it's all the more quite useless to distribute a
js-beautify2 if
the python version has the same cli arguments - and i suppose the same test
suite.

Jérémy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/attachments/20190201/a7875750/attachment.html>