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

Bug#829046: pagure dependencies (JavaScript libraries) packaged



On Saturday, December 24 2016, Pirate Praveen wrote:

> 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.

Well, I've done some tests here and I think I have a package that
builds.  I've updated pagure to an intermediary version, 2.6, and the
package builds fine on pbuilder/cowbuilder using the latest unstable.
You can find it here:

  http://git.sergiodj.net/?p=debian/pagure-new.git;a=summary

Can you give it a try?  I think we can go with that (even for stretch),
if you are OK with it.  The package contains bundled JS libraries, and
minifies them during the build, so it's not perfect in this aspect.  But
we can fix this later, when we have more time.

>> 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.

Right, that's nice indeed, but it demands work anyway...  But it's
really good that grunt and gulp are now available.

Thanks,

-- 
Sergio
GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF  31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36
Please send encrypted e-mail if possible
http://sergiodj.net/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: