On 03/11/2013 15:34, Julian Taylor wrote: > On 03.11.2013 01:30, Jérémy Lal wrote: >> On 03/11/2013 00:56, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: > .... >>> 3. Seriously, one package for _18_ lines of code? >> > > > To the very least the package should be renamed e.g. > node-bytereprconverter or something less generic. > bytes is far too generic, not really related to what it actually does,
a package name does not have to reflect what it does in any way... > and pollutes the (node) namespace. There is little chance another node module, which happen to be also an npm package, has the same name, since the collision would happen in npm repository before reaching debian. > Given that there is no agreement on what is the right way to do what > this package attempts to do, I think packaging should stalled until > upstream actually provides useful functionality, like being able to > choose between both interpretations of representations. The fonctionality is useful enough that several modules depend on it already, see [0] for a complete list. When i meet those conditions: the software is a few lines of code, it is a dependency leaf, and no other module than one module by the same author is using it, i agree that it's best to provide those lines as a patch. > Reverse depends requiring the package in its current form can easily be > patched with these few lines. But then, when several[0] packages have incorporated those few lines, the job to update that representation will require fixing all packages instead of updating just one. Jérémy. [0] https://npmjs.org/browse/depended/bytes to be fair, only a small part of those modules is interesting or still maintained. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5276813e.9030...@melix.org
