On 10/23/2015 03:14 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Josh Triplett wrote:
>> Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>>
>>> YA tiny Javascript "library" containing 3 lines of utterly trivial
>>> code. :-(
>>>
>>> I appreciate you're just following through a dependency chain from
>>> upstream for tape, but please push back on upstream and ask them why
>>> they're doing this kind of ridiculous split-up. Code re-use in general
>>> is a good plan, but not at the level of every trivial helper function
>>> being split out into its own library!
>>
>> "why" is because node (and other modern languages) make it easy to
>> create a package for any particular bit of reusable code. That Debian
>> fails to support that is Debian's problem, not upstream's.
>
> In the general case I might agree, but have you actually looked at
> some of these cases? It's ridiculous in any language to have a
> separate library for a single function as trivial as:
>
> for (var i = 0; i < arguments.length; i++) {
> if (arguments[i] !== undefined) return arguments[i];
> }
>
> Split it out into a separate helper function in the surrounding code?
> Sure. Add it to your own library with lots of other little helpers?
> Yes, by all means if you're using it a lot. But a separate library
> with its own docs and test suite and everything? No, that's a joke.
+1
But good luck to teach good practices upstream. See Ross's reply: 120
packages are depending on this.
Though it is also my view that packaging tiny stuff shouldn't be a
problem. If it is, then we should fix whatever it is that is problematic
in Debian infra.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
