Re: Dealing with embedded javascript libraries
Roland Mas <lolando@debian.org> writes:
> I don't do much library packaging myself, but it was my understanding
> that versions of libraries that break API/ABI are meant to go in
> different binary packages, usually with a version number in the package
> name. Javascript doesn't have an ABI, but libraries written in that
> language are still libraries, aren't they?
Yes, I think so. The problem arises IMO because the conventions are
different.
Generally, programmers using Javascript libraries expect and encourage
the direct inclusion of the library in the application, and there are
very few cultural norms to discourage this code duplication.
I would very much like that to change – that programmers should expect a
single instance of a Javascript library to be useable across the OS, and
that a Javascript library without a dependable ABI should be shunned by
most application writers, and for applications to declare the library
versions they expect in a standardised, automated way. But I don't know
what to do to get there.
--
\ “A ‘No’ uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater |
`\ than a ‘Yes’ merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to |
_o__) avoid trouble.” —Mohandas K. Gandhi |
Ben Finney
Reply to: