Pau Garcia i Quiles, 2011-10-27 11:22:08 +0200 : > On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Roland Mas <lola...@debian.org> wrote: >>> Requiring the non-minified file to be provided in the same source >>> package is not a very productive use of our time. >> >> Right. In the same way that providing the source for our binaries >> isn't very productive, I guess, because who's going to use it when they >> have the pre-built binaries? I know this is an exaggeration, but >> there's no substantial difference between the two cases. > > But we provide *source packages*. We do not provide the source in the > *binary* package.
Quite true. > That's what Raphael is talking about: having the minified and the > original (non-minified) JavaScript in the *same* package (which would > be the binary package, and also the source package). I don't think anyone is actually arguing in favour of shipping the original JS in the binary packages. The point being argued is whether shipping *only* the minified JS in the source package is correct or not. > I said this in the original thread and I'll repeat it here: if we have > the non-minified JavaScript, then I see no problem in providing only > the minified version in the binary package. Agreed, if the minified version is actually generated during the package build. If it's not, then we get back to the initial problem. > To me, these are equivalents: > > Minified Javascript == ELF binaries > > Original (non-minified) Javascript == C++ source code > > > And that's not entirely true, btw, because it depends on what minifier > has been applied. IIRC JSMIN and Packer do not modify the source > (therefore you can always go back to the original JavaScript just by > re-applying whitespace, indendation, etc), while yui-compressor and > Google's do modify the source to remove dead branches, optimize, etc The ELF binaries also depend on compiler versions, options and phase of the moon, so the analogy isn't that wrong. > My proposal: > > 1. Have multiple versions of JavaScript libraries, very much like we > have multiple versions of binary libraries with soversions, different > package names (libfoo1, libfoo2, etc). We would have libjs-jquery1.4, > libjs-jquery1.6, etc > > 2. If upstream only provides the original (non-minified) JavaScript, > then we do not have a problem. This never happens, AFAIK. Not quite true; FusionForge upstream in particular ships some complete versions of some jQuery plugins (FusionForge as a Debian package takes care to use the system libraries). But that's a minor point :-) > 3. If upstream only provides the minified JavaScript, add the package > for the non-minified JavaScript as a build dependency and re-minify > it. This is what I do in witty, for instance. > > 4. If upstream provides the original (non-minified) JavaScript *and* > the minified JavaScript, ignore both of them and do same as 3 This all boils down to "treat Javascript libraries exactly the same as libraries in other languages", and I'm all in favour of that. Roland. -- Roland Mas The best definition of an immortal is someone who hasn't died yet. -- in Ye Gods! (Tom Holt) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87aa8m21iz....@mirexpress.internal.placard.fr.eu.org
