[Pkg-javascript-devel] @rollup/* plugins

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Pirate Praveen (2020-09-15 17:04:22)
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 11:06, Xavier <yadd at debian.org> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > next node-babel7 needs some @rollup/* plugins that can not be 
> > replaced by rollup-*.
> > Proposition: for each node-rollup-* package:
> >  * change default debian/watch entry to download @rollup/*
> >  * embed old rollup-* as a component to keep compatibility
> >    *OR*
> >  * create a dummy rollup-* module with
> >      `module.export = require("@rollup/NAME")`
> > 
> > Do you agree with that?
> > 
> > NB: @rollup/* look to work fine with current rollup
> 
> I think all @rollup/plugins are in a single repo. Does it make sense 
> to create a single rollup-plugins package?

It makes sense to bundle things that a) not too complex, b) are closely 
related and c) evolve either at roughly the same pace or hardly at all.

By a) I mean that several kinds of complexity is extra painful if 
stuffed into a bundled package: Some packages benefit from our being 
able to track upstream development - e.g. to pick an older release or 
even some snapshot commit as basis for our releases instead of relying 
on "newest upstream gotta be best".  Some packages link with multiple 
other complex "stuff" (compiler, transpiler, compressor or whatever) 
which raises the risk of blocking transitions.

Bundling is _always_ added complexity that we introduce, compared to 
upstream.  Beware that ftpmasters _only_ require bundling of extremely 
non-complex packages!


 - 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/20200915/b791ea2c/attachment.sig>