On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 09:26:38 +0200 Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> wrote: > ❦ 12 juillet 2014 23:08 +0100, Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> : > > > 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? > > Because, in node, a library is cheap and the functionality get unit > tested. That's why there are so many dependencies in this ecosystem. Unit tests do not preclude inlining. Unit tests do not preclude aggregation. It's all just about multiple blocks of code in dedicated directories inside a single source package building a single binary package from which any other package can pick and choose the bits that package needs. Just what is wrong with one binary package putting lots of js in /usr/share/javascript/$library/$version/ and using symlinks in the bigger package to pull in the files that package wants? It's more work for the maintainers but it's less work for users - which is the right way around. > Inlining is solving the wrong problem. Tiny packages are the wrong solution. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature