Re: RFS: protoaculous
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Michael Gilbert
> Since this package is perhaps a bit weird, see the following
> links for more info:
Weird indeed! /me hugs the web
> The logic for building from existing prototype/scriptaculous packages
> is to avoid introducing duplicated code copies, which the security
> team rather despises ;)
Hmm, that makes it more like a static library, which is bad, but not
as bad as an embedded code copy. Actually, looking the package, it
isn't quite as bad as a static library. Hmm, you could make it even
less bad by adding triggers on the prototype and scriptaculous files
and rebuilding there.
> It would be a lot easier to just copy the pre-built protoaculous, but i'm trying to be kind.
Don't forget DFSG #2 ;)
I'm wondering if we should encourage web developers to use this level
of insanity by packaging it in Debian? Hmmm, I guess then they'd just
dump it into their dev tree. Or not be using Debian in the first
Looking at the postinst code, actually I'm wondering if a more
generalised solution would be useful. Instead of including lots of JS
files in a page, you could define "bundles" and dpkg would then
rebuild the bundles whenever you upgrade one of the libjs-* packages
advantages of protoaculous with more generality.