Hi Sergio !
El 15/2/20 a las 19:24, Sergio Durigan Junior escribió:
> On Saturday, February 15 2020, Inaki Malerba wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone!
>
> Hey Inaki,
>
>> I'm looking for some advice on how to fix some problems on 2 different
>> packages I've been trying to update with no luck so far.
>>
>> # python-icecream. [0][1]
>>
>> The new release includes a dependency to a very small repository [2]
>> that's not packaged.
>>
>> My first thought was to open an ITP and try to package it, but it turns
>> out to be a single python script and I'm not sure if it's reasonable to
>> create a whole package for that.
>>
>> Should I package the new dependency? The README[3] even suggests that
>> it's ok to copy that single file. Would it be OK if I patch it into my
>> package?
>
> It's not uncommon to see small Python packages out there, often with
> only a single file, like this one. IMO, you should go ahead and package
> it properly. Other packages might depend on it, and it seems like an
> easy package to make anyway.
Thanks ! I already sent the ITP and i'll try to do the packaging today.
It's really small, I hope it goes fast through NEW.
>
>> # doit [4][5]
>>
>> The latest release of this package contains a huge change on the
>> documentation, which breaks the linting. It contains a lot of external
>> javascripts and stuff.
>>
>> As python-icecream, doit made a change to depend on a custom sphinx
>> theme that's not packaged but I managed to fix that patching it to use
>> the default theme[6].
>>
>> Having changed the theme and fixed one of lintian suggestions (the
>> node-html5shiv one), there are still a lot of problems with the docs
>> package[7]. I even thought of removing the python-doit-doc package.
>
> This one is more complicated...
>
> Apparently upstream decided to write an index.html documentation page
> full of minified, non-Free JS:
>
>
> https://github.com/pydoit/doit/commit/e7717d705d60731f750f1e27e0f633c3d0502678
>
> If you look at index.html's header, you'll see references to things
> under the _static/vendor directory, or links to fonts.googleapis.com.
> Both are problematic:
>
> https://github.com/pydoit/doit/blob/master/doc/index.html#L10-L26
>
> We have almost everything packaged in Debian that is needed to replace
> these. You will have to remove the files from the tarball (using
> d/copyright's Files-Excluded, plus using +dfsg in the package's
> version).
>
> These are the replacements that already exist in Debian:
>
> libjs-bootstrap (for bootstrap.min.js)
> fonts-font-awesome (for font-awesome.min.css)
> fonts-roboto (for the googleapis.com Roboto font)
>
> We're missing packages for "bootstrap-select.min.css" and
> "owl.carousel". The good thing about "owl.carousel" is that python-doit
> ships the non-minified JS version, which means that you can minify it
> during build time. The problematic part is the
> "bootstrap-select.min.css" file, which is only shipped in its minified
> version.
>
> The ideal scenario would be to package bootstrap-select and then depend
> on it, but I don't think it's fair to make you go through this (the
> package seems a bit complicated, and packaging JS is not easy
> sometimes). Another "good enough" approach (IMO) would be to copy a
> version of "bootstrap-select.js" (non-minified) into python-doit's code
> (using a patch under d/patch, of course), and then minify it during the
> build. This is not very elegant, but solves the problem (it's similar
> to what you proposed above, for python-icecream).
>
> All in all, it will demand a bit of work, unfortunately.
Excellent. I'll try to go with the patching of bootstrap-select.js option.
Why should I include the non-minified version? For reading purposes?
Never thought of it but makes sense.
Thanks a lot :)
>
> Thanks,
>
--
- ina
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
