[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#841099: ITP: node-has-values -- Returns true if any values exist, false if empty

On Tuesday 18 October 2016 01:51 AM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Andrew Shadura wrote:
>> Honestly, I’d like to object to packaging a 31 line script in a separate
>> package.
> These are distinct packages, with distinct version numbers, and packages
> will need to declare (potentially versioned) dependencies on them.
> Packaging numerous libraries in a single source package has downsides as
> well, such as larger uploads any time *any* component of the package
> changes, or any time a new component gets added.

Yes, it is more effort to package them together and it becomes
impossible to declare version-ed dependencies. I tried doing this for
ruby-jquery-rails and ruby-rails-assets-jquery (ruby-jquery-rails was
providing ruby-rails-assets-jquery), but stopped doing it because I
could not declare version-ed dependency on ruby-rails-assets-jquery.

> I would, in general, object to packages like this *if they're not being
> packaged as part of the dependency/build-dependency tree of some
> other intended package*, but in general, I think we need to be prepared
> to deal with upstreams that have small single-purpose packages.  I don't
> think we should package the entire node ecosystem, but packaging the
> subset of it needed for end-user-targeted packages seems fine.

These are dependencies for grunt.

> Also, consider the ongoing issue of packaging high-level JavaScript
> libraries and frameworks correctly, whose build-dependency toolchains
> for processes like minimization/"browserification" have numerous
> packages like these in them.  If we're going to require the packaging of
> all the tools needed to build such libraries, which I absolutely think
> we should, then let's not simultaneously put up roadblocks every time
> someone tries to do so.

We are crowd funding grunt/browserify packaging

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: