On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 10:26 PM, Julien Puydt <julien.pu...@laposte.net> wrote: > Hi, > > as you may know, more and more JS projects incorporate some TypeScript > these days. This requires some definitions because the typing is > stronger, so we have: > (1) projects adding typing for what they provide, and that means we > should now ship that too ; > (2) projects depending on typing for external deps, which don't provide > it yet. > > How is (2) even possible, you might ask? In typical JS-frenzy, people > start using definitions for projects not yet providing them by using a > repository which provides those *outside of the relevant upstream*. > > Here it is: > https://github.com/DefinitelyTyped/DefinitelyTyped > (providing more than 4000 type definitions) > > If you see some "@types/foo" in the depends of a JS-package, that might > be one of those. > > So what can we do? I see several trails onward :
Can I suggest in all the case something pragmatic ? Could I suggest that package providing types for node-foo should be named nodetypes-foo (without hyphen in order to avoid conflict with node package) If node-foo include type it is only needed to add "Provides: nodetypes-foo (= ${Source:Version})" in node-foo. Can someone suggest a policy file change ? The same tips could be used for libjs-foo lib BTW. I have done that for node-normalize.css for instance. It avoid small package and is ftpmaster friendly Bastien > > (1) Package that as a big source package providing a single big binary > package. > Good: simple > Bad: a huge dependency > > (2) Package that as a big source package providing thousands of binary > packages. > Good: no huge dependency > Bad: huge number of binary packages for little data > > (3) Modify Debian packages of upstreams not providing definitions on a > case-by-case basis, shipping them in debian/. > Good: we ship only what we need, and when upstreams take the defs, we > just ship what they included and drop what we added (just like > DefinitelyTyped drops their definitions in that case) > Bad: we drift away from upstream, and need to check for latest > versions of those separately by hand as long as upstream doesn't bundle > the definitions themselves. > > What do you think about it? > > Snark on #debian-js > > -- > Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list > Pkg-javascript-devel@alioth-lists.debian.net > https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel -- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel