❦ 2 septembre 2015 10:18 +0200, Samuel Thibault <firstname.lastname@example.org> : >> Or maybe you propose to just ship the whole "node_modules" directory >> (which has all the dependencies) with jQuery sources? > > That'd be a lot better than nothing. OK. Also, node_modules for jQuery is 76M (for 3.x, 70M for 2.x). I still find using pre-minification jquery.js to be a better alternative due to the fact is far far simpler. But whatever the consensus we may reach. >> This would incur some work on d/copyright and I don't see like this >> would be a good practice. > > Yes, but that work on d/copyright is *needed*: if we don't know for sure > that the compiler itself is really free, then we can't call the result > free and put it in main. Yes, but at each release, node_modules will need to be regenerated and inspected again. > I however agree that it seems poor practice to duplicate these build > modules in every packages. But if the required versions are different, > there is no real other way. If there is a set of modules which are known > to be used widely and with stable versions, then they could be put in a > shared package. I can't say for sure. >> But this would solve some of the problems, yes. > > What problems remain? Parametrized and custom builds. But we don't have to solve everything at once. -- Every cloud engenders not a storm. -- William Shakespeare, "Henry VI"
Description: PGP signature