On 05/06/2013 09:18 AM, Jérémy Lal wrote: > First please note that i am not talking here about minified versions > of javascript files that are shipped in upstream tarballs [0]. > > Please comment about what could be part of our javascript policy [1]. > It might help future javascript maintainers. > > A package that distribute minified files for convenience > * must distribute the unminified files
Why? We don't demand that C programs distribute C source alongside the
binaries. This is what source packages are for.
> * should name the minified files like "foo.min.js"
I'm also not yet convinced of this (but i possibly could be if it was
explained more clearly). why not just encourage all packages to ship a
canonical set of files, and ship them minified if possible?
> * should not minify all files blindly
> (i'm thinking of jquery.ui.datepicker-xx.js)
Again, why not? If we believe in our minification techniques, what is
the harm?
> * if no minifier was available at build time, the minified files must
> symlink to the unminified ones (instead of being removed or empty).
This one makes sense to me -- we don't want to ship minified files in
version N and then have them get ripped out in version N+1 when people
might be relying on linking to them.
> * a node-foo package should not distribute minified files.
Again, why?
Sorry for all the n00b questions. Feel free to point me to
documentation that already answers them that i might have missed.
Regards,
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
