Bug#903428: deduplicating jquery/
Hi, WordPress has a bunch of these dependencies which float in and out of lining up between what Debian has and what upstream WordPress uses. As an added bonus, they sometimes slightly adjust their copies. I use lintian overrides and dh-linktree and this helps, but the result is less than good and often just means WordPress ships with its own copies of javascript libraries. It makes me rather sad, but fixing it would cost a lot of time (and also what Russ said, which was a good summary of the problem) so I don't see a good solution. But if you ever find one, I'll gladly update WordPress to use it :) - Craig
Bug#903428: deduplicating jquery/
I was just updating a package and got the using lintian grumbling that javadoc has added 1.3MB of jquery to my package (almost doubling its installed size). There are 5 of these on my system (I'm surprised its not more actually, surely some people must have tens or hundreds of these as both doxygen and javadoc do this?). Having read #903428 I see there is no enthusiasm for fixing this in the tooling. And also that I am not the only person coming across this and wondering what to do about it. I've had this experience before with both doxygen and javadoc and have spent some years assuming that someone will sort this out eventually. Whilst I agree that having a local jquery in each such set of docs is not that big a deal, do we not potetially end up with an awful lot of them across the distro so maybe it is worth taking more seriously? If it really is only 5 on everyone's machines then I guess we can live with that. Given that the maintainers of both javadoc and doxygen have declared this "wontfix" should we not at least stop lintian complaining about it? Unless the project disgrees with the maintainers decisions here it seems perverse to continue to mark this as an issue. And also at least document some dh runes for doing the necesarry symlinking to use the system copy so that packagers can just find the "standard solution" and use that without having to read a great long bug report, find that everyone has thrown up their hands, and write pleading mails :-) (Acompanied by a note about the practical risk of incompatible version changes over time - I know I don't know how much I should worry about that in practice (given that my inclination is to use the system version, because I'm much more bothered about the duplication than the problem that the search function in the API docs for an obscure package might stop working one day ...) This feels like the sort of makework we used to be better at dealing with. Am I just getting grumpy in my old age? Perhaps there are docs for packagers on this somewhere, in which case can someone reply so they are in the bug report. Cheers. Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM http://wookware.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#903428: deduplicating jquery/
Le 07/01/2019 à 23:02, Samuel Thibault a écrit : > I'd rather cripple the documentation a bit than removing it :) The issue is, we keep getting more and more javadoc related issues with each OpenJDK upgrade. This jquery "issue" is a bit the straw that breaks the camel's back, and we would rather cut the loss now than investing even more time on these low popcon packages. The Java Team is understaffed, we struggle to keep up with the JDK upgrades and update the important packages, so the documentation issues are really low priority items. > Could jh_build perhaps just drop the embedded jquery copy to just avoid > the issue? AFAIK, jquery is only used to implement the "search" feature, > which can sometimes be convenient, but can be done by users with greps & > such. jh_build is only part of the picture. Most javadoc packages are generated by Maven, so the maven-javadoc-plugin would have to be patched as well. Emmanuel Bourg
Bug#903428: deduplicating jquery/
Emmanuel Bourg, le lun. 07 janv. 2019 22:25:35 +0100, a ecrit: > Le 07/01/2019 à 21:13, Nicholas D Steeves a écrit : > > Do you have any suggestions for working with the following?: (please > > reply to -devel) > > We've discussed this topic in #903428 and the consensus is roughly that > it's a waste of time and we would rather drop the mostly unused javadoc > packages than implementing this. I'd rather cripple the documentation a bit than removing it :) Could jh_build perhaps just drop the embedded jquery copy to just avoid the issue? AFAIK, jquery is only used to implement the "search" feature, which can sometimes be convenient, but can be done by users with greps & such. Samuel
