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

[Xavier]

Le 01/02/2019 à 19:05, Jérémy Lal a écrit :
> 
> Le ven. 1 févr. 2019 à 18:52, Paolo Greppi <paolo.greppi at libpf.com
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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

As jsbeautifier installs just one binary we could simply add
Breaks/Provides fields in debian/control to close the bug