Hi! Sorry for late reply, my life is a big mess.
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 22:32 +0100, Emilien Klein wrote: > Hi Marcelo, > Le 16 nov. 2012 15:42, "Marcelo Jorge Vieira" <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > Hi Emilien, > > > > On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 15:49 +0100, Emilien Klein wrote: > > > 2012/10/29 Marcelo Jorge Vieira <[email protected]>: > > > > Hi Emilien, > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 15:53 +0100, Emilien Klein wrote: > > > >> Hi team, > > > >> > > > >> 2012/9/30 Emilien Klein <[email protected]>: > > > >> > Hi JS team, > > > >> > > > > >> > I've updated jquery-lazyload's git repo [0] with its latest version > > > >> > 1.8.0. > > > >> > It would be nice if one of you could review it, and if everything is > > > >> > OK, upload it. > > > >> > > > >> Could somebody have a look at this new version, and upload it? > > > > > > > > I will do it. > > > > > > Thanks Marcelo. > > > +Emilien > > > > My review: > > Thanks for your review. > > > 1) Minified files: > > Will do. > What is the best way to automate the repackaging? I've seen some > mentions of `debian/rules get-orig-source`, would you be able to point > me to some good example (I assume inside the js team we have some good > example of exactly this, removing minified files and repackaging) Take a look here: http://is.gd/fmIsUN > > 3) examples: > > > > 3.1) Would be interesting you install the examples > > I thought about it when first packaging, but those example include > pictures (from the author?), which: > - increase the size of the package (upstream tarball is 1.6Mb, > repackaged without the images is 12,6 Kb): it feels unnecessary for > just a little js library to have "such a large" package downloaded But you can split it into a doc package ( jquery-lazyload-doc), such as, libjs-jquery-ui and libjs-jquery-ui-docs. > - licensing of these images is unclear : if we worry about having > minified js in the *source* package (which doesn't end in the binary > package, as the source files get minified by `debian/rules > override_dh_auto_build`), shouldn't we worry about those imaging > getting in the binary package? Yes, is the same thing. There is no license file in repository or mention about images license =/ > I had contacted upstream about the licensing of these images, but > never got an answer and kind of dropped the pressure. Bad, I will too. > Question: would it make sense to include the examples *without* the > images? That way developers could still see the source code... If > going that route, I assume getting those images out of the source > tarball when repackaging would be OK, please advise. As I said, there is no general license, so we only know the license for JS files. > Upstream has released a new version, I'll update the package to 1.8.1. ok! Cheers, -- Marcelo Jorge Vieira xmpp:[email protected] http://metaldot.alucinados.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
