[As suggested by Ian Jackson on -devel] [0] Hi, Javascript maintainers team have evolved a policy for javascript packages and it is available at https://wiki.debian.org/Javascript/Policy Its last point says, 5. should generate a node-foo binary package if the script is usable also for Nodejs But ftp masters rejected the last upload [1] which added node-three binary package to three.js source package. There was also a similar demand earlier about handlebars package [2] but was accepted by another ftp master. I think the policy is good and request debian policy team to endorse it. The advantages of creating different binary packages (hope others in the team can add any points I missed): 1. Node.js has standard locations for discovering installed packages which is different from browser targeted javascript libraries. Node.js expects pure js modules to be installed at /usr/lib/nodejs but javascript libraries are installed at /usr/share/javascript 2. Dependency on nodejs is required only during build or when other Node.js modules depend on it. a browser targeted library does not need to depend on nodejs package. If you take example of node-handlebars source package, libjs-handlebars is targeted at browsers and does not need to declare a dependency on nodejs. But handlebars package need nodejs to run. If there is only a single binary package, nodejs will get installed unnecessarily. [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2018/03/msg00063.html [1] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/2018-February/025121.html [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=837467#22
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature