Hi Sergio ! El 15/2/20 a las 19:24, Sergio Durigan Junior escribió: > On Saturday, February 15 2020, Inaki Malerba wrote: > >> Hi everyone! > > Hey Inaki, > >> I'm looking for some advice on how to fix some problems on 2 different >> packages I've been trying to update with no luck so far. >> >> # python-icecream. [0][1] >> >> The new release includes a dependency to a very small repository [2] >> that's not packaged. >> >> My first thought was to open an ITP and try to package it, but it turns >> out to be a single python script and I'm not sure if it's reasonable to >> create a whole package for that. >> >> Should I package the new dependency? The README[3] even suggests that >> it's ok to copy that single file. Would it be OK if I patch it into my >> package? > > It's not uncommon to see small Python packages out there, often with > only a single file, like this one. IMO, you should go ahead and package > it properly. Other packages might depend on it, and it seems like an > easy package to make anyway. Thanks ! I already sent the ITP and i'll try to do the packaging today. It's really small, I hope it goes fast through NEW. > >> # doit [4][5] >> >> The latest release of this package contains a huge change on the >> documentation, which breaks the linting. It contains a lot of external >> javascripts and stuff. >> >> As python-icecream, doit made a change to depend on a custom sphinx >> theme that's not packaged but I managed to fix that patching it to use >> the default theme[6]. >> >> Having changed the theme and fixed one of lintian suggestions (the >> node-html5shiv one), there are still a lot of problems with the docs >> package[7]. I even thought of removing the python-doit-doc package. > > This one is more complicated... > > Apparently upstream decided to write an index.html documentation page > full of minified, non-Free JS: > > https://github.com/pydoit/doit/commit/e7717d705d60731f750f1e27e0f633c3d0502678 > > If you look at index.html's header, you'll see references to things > under the _static/vendor directory, or links to fonts.googleapis.com. > Both are problematic: > > https://github.com/pydoit/doit/blob/master/doc/index.html#L10-L26 > > We have almost everything packaged in Debian that is needed to replace > these. You will have to remove the files from the tarball (using > d/copyright's Files-Excluded, plus using +dfsg in the package's > version). > > These are the replacements that already exist in Debian: > > libjs-bootstrap (for bootstrap.min.js) > fonts-font-awesome (for font-awesome.min.css) > fonts-roboto (for the googleapis.com Roboto font) > > We're missing packages for "bootstrap-select.min.css" and > "owl.carousel". The good thing about "owl.carousel" is that python-doit > ships the non-minified JS version, which means that you can minify it > during build time. The problematic part is the > "bootstrap-select.min.css" file, which is only shipped in its minified > version. > > The ideal scenario would be to package bootstrap-select and then depend > on it, but I don't think it's fair to make you go through this (the > package seems a bit complicated, and packaging JS is not easy > sometimes). Another "good enough" approach (IMO) would be to copy a > version of "bootstrap-select.js" (non-minified) into python-doit's code > (using a patch under d/patch, of course), and then minify it during the > build. This is not very elegant, but solves the problem (it's similar > to what you proposed above, for python-icecream). > > All in all, it will demand a bit of work, unfortunately. Excellent. I'll try to go with the patching of bootstrap-select.js option. Why should I include the non-minified version? For reading purposes? Never thought of it but makes sense. Thanks a lot :) > > Thanks, > -- - ina
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature