Re: Bug#754551: ITP: node-ms -- milliseconds conversion utility
l3on@ubuntu.com wrote:
>On 12 July 2014 15:15, Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 12:55:02PM +0200, Leo Iannacone wrote:
>>>
>>> But, after discussing this in JavaScript team we ended up that it is
>>> better have separated packages, instead of having a big
>>> "nodejs-common" (or whatever) package, in order to properly track
>>> upstream releases individually.
>>
>> How much do you think it will change in the foreseeable future? If
>> there are frequent changes to those 111 lines, I am buying your
>> argument, but if we are talking about 1-2 updates a year, a js-bundle
>> package (which itself could be updated every couple of weeks unless
>> major bugs or security issues pop up) might be more worthwhile.
>
>I have no idea about how frequently upstream will release a new
>version.. I think 1-2 updates per year as you said.
>
>Anyway I still prefer manage modules separately, I don't see any
>reason to make a "common" package..
>
>And common to what? Node.js?? Express framework (since these are all
>dependencies for it)?
>It makes no sense -at least- to me.
For such small (and obvious?) code in library packages, how many other
packages are going to depend on or use them? If the Express framework
is the key/only user, either bundle them with it or as one separate
package that it depends on? Is there no node equivalent of the
standard library where these could be attached?
And I've got to ask: for the couple of trivial examples that Frederick
pointed out - why on earth do these even exist as libraries instead of
being inlined wherever they're needed?
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
Support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression: http://www.eff.org/cafe/
Reply to: