[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#976331: Bug#976331: [JS Policy] what to set in "Provides" field ?

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Xavier (2020-12-03 17:33:18)
> Le 03/12/2020 à 16:36, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> > Quoting Xavier (2020-12-03 15:44:48)
> >> Le 03/12/2020 à 15:12, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> >>> Quoting Xavier (2020-12-03 14:35:25)
> >>>> Le 03/12/2020 à 14:24, Xavier a écrit :
> >>>>> Le 03/12/2020 à 12:44, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> >>>>>> These source packages embed nodejs module serialize-javascript 
> >>>>>> without offering it as virtual binary package:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  node-compression-webpack-plugin
> >>>>>>  node-copy-webpack-plugin
> >>>>>>  node-uglifyjs-webpack-plugin
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please embed in only one source package provided as versioned 
> >>>>>> virtual package, and drop in other source packages instead 
> >>>>>> depending on the virtual package.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Severity raised since the lack of virtual package blocks upgrading 
> >>>>>> node-terser.
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>>>> for now, dh-sequence-nodejs adds a "Provides" item for modules 
> >>>>> installed in root nodejs directories. Do we want to declare a 
> >>>>> "node-foo" for submodules (installed in a <package>/node_modules 
> >>>>> directory) ?
> >>>
> >>> Whatever that tool does, the resulting package should declare 
> >>> Provides: for each embedded Nodejs module, properly versioned with 
> >>> the module's own version as first segment then "~" then source 
> >>> package version.
> >>>
> >>> I cannot see a reason for *any* embedded Nodejs module to stay 
> >>> hidden, but if someone comes up with some exceptional cases for 
> >>> that, then the reasoning should be explicitly documented in either 
> >>> README.source or README.Debian (and possibly in long description 
> >>> too).
> >>
> >> I chose that because such modules are not directly usable using a 
> >> `require("foo")`, but I can change
> > 
> > I am less interested in why historically some pattern was chosen.
> > 
> > My interest is in what pattern to use going forward.
> > 
> > Code in package have dependencies on code in other packages.
> > 
> > We need to be able to declare dependencies between pieces of code.
> > 
> > For JavaScript, code is grouped as "Nodejs modules".
> > 
> > A a concrete example, Nodejs module rollup-plugin-terser depends on 
> > Nodejs module serialize-javascript.
> > 
> > Going forward (regardless of why historically some other pattern was 
> > chosen), Debian package node-rollup-plugin-terser needs to be able to 
> > express a build-dependency on Debian package providing the Nodejs module 
> > serialize-javascript.
> > 
> > 
> >>>> Note that the future lintian database (classification tags) will 
> >>>> permit to see node modules everywhere.
> >>>
> >>> Everywhere?
> >>
> >> Sorry, I miss some explanations: lintian parses all files and emit a tag
> >> each time it finds a node_module/foo/package.json or
> >> <main nodejs>/foo/package.json or <main nodejs/foo.js. Then we will be
> >> able to see nodejs embedded module in all Debian packages.
> > 
> > Lintian can help check if a package is valid.
> > 
> > Lintian cannot make a package declare as virtual Debian packages the 
> > Nodejs modules it has embedded.
> > 
> > 
> >> NB2, you can also take a look at
> >> https://lintian.debian.org/tags/nodejs-module-not-declared.html : it
> >> shows node module installed in nodejs main dirs (not in node_modules/
> >> for now).
> > 
> > A web page (generated by lintian or written any other way) cannot make a 
> > package declare as virtual Debian packages the Nodejs modules it has 
> > embedded.
> > 
> > 
> >> If we decide to change this ~policy, nodejs-module-not-declared should 
> >> also be updated.
> > 
> > I am pretty sure that hiding generally usable embedded code violates a 
> > "should" somewhere in Debian Policy.
> 
> If so, lintian should reports "error", not info/warning when a JS lib is
> embedded. Ftpmasters didn't reject such packages (see jquery copies for
> example).

Ideally lintian should identify and report all errors.

Ideally all packaging work could be automated.

Reality is slightly different. though.



> > Therefore, if Debian JavaScript Policy says that generally useful 
> > modules should be *hidden* instead of provided as virtual packages, then 
> > I consider Debian JavaScript Policy broken.
> > 
> >> But in this case, we will have some not-directly-usable node-* virtual 
> >> packages.
> > 
> > Why not-directly-usable?
> > 
> > Obviously we should not _only_ declare "Provides:" but also make sure 
> > that the code is actually placed in the correct location below 
> > /usr/share/nodejs and check testsuite and establish autopkgtest and all 
> > the other things that is required for packaging code.
> > 
> > Embedded code is not magically excluded from getting properly packaged.
> 
> You're free to think that my packages are not properly packaged.

I am not targeting you, nor am I targeting dh-sequence-nodejs, nor am I 
targeting lintian, nor am I targeting JavaScript Team Policy.  You 
brought those up in this _discussion_ about a package that I filed a 
bugreport against.


> Anyway, let's decide.

Decide on what exactly?  My way or the highway?  Your way or the highway?


I notice you added [JS Policy] to the subject, but this is bug#976331 
which is specifically about three Debian packages all embedding Nodejs 
module serialize-javascript without any of them providing 
serialize-javascript as a binary package.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/attachments/20201203/8d601e41/attachment.sig>