Re: Minified files and source code requirement
Zygmunt Krynicki dijo [Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 01:09:52PM +0200]:
> We could use this pattern:
>
> libjsfoo package ships a file that is exposed as
> http://*/javascript/foo/foo.min.js
>
> libjsfoo package ships a file that is exposed as
> http://*/javascript/foo/foo.js
>
> A config option somewhere could allow a developer administering his
> own system to serve foo.js instead of foo.min.js when accesed from
> the /javascript namespace. I guess this could be done in
> javascript-common.conf
>
> There are no symlinks involved (no maintainer scripts needed), the
> administrator has control over the configuration, -dev packages are
> genuinely useful to developers, non -dev packages are smaller.
In my case, I have asked some upstreams to ship the un-minified
versions as part of their sources, mainly to satisfy the "prefered
form of modificaiton" GPL clause. (and they have complied so
far). Even if I don't ship the actual (minified or full) version in my
provided packages but just in the source (as I'm depending on the
systemwide library).
But anyway, I don't think we should insist on having both foo.js and
foo.min.js available in the binary packages. Minifying is a way of
compiling, after all. We don't ship source files in our binary
packages unless there is a real reason to do so.
Reply to: