On ശനി 24 ഡിസംബര് 2016 10:54 രാവിലെ, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > IMO, if you have time, here's what I would do: > > - If you manage to get the building issue sorted out, and if there are > no other critical issues, then I think the package is "good enough" > (for a very relaxed definition of "good") to be put on stretch. As > Praveen said, we will have 2 months to fix remaining bugs. > > - If it is not possible to fix the critical bugs, then I'd suggest going > with the strectch-backports alternative. It's not a bad option IMHO, > and gives us even more time to really fix the underlying problems. Its too close to Dec 25, lets take the backports path. > Something really concerning me is the fact that pagure keeps adding JS > dependencies that are either not packaged on Debian, or that are > packaged as part of another, bigger package (usually some big ruby > extension or so). And even in the second case, when the file is already > in Debian, it is not really following our guidelines; for example, the > .js and .min.js files are being shipped without being built from > source. We now have grunt and gulp in main (rollup and babel are on their way), so rebuilding them would be much easier than before (reimplementing the build in rules). The ruby ones are usually just wrappers for the js part. It would be easy to separate them if needed. ruby packages can just add a symlink instead of embedded copies when we package the js part separately.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature