Re: RFS: coffeescript
Hi! As you might have noticed, I've just uploaded the package. Regards Christoph -- /\ ASCII Ribbon : GPG-Key ID: 0xD49AE731 \ /Campaign : CaCert Assurer X against HTML : Debian Developer / \ in eMails : http://www.debian.org/ http://www.christoph-egger.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: coffeescript
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 10:56:58PM -0400, Geza Kovacs wrote: On 04/01/2010 12:42 PM, Christoph Egger wrote: * Your patches don't have any description on them. I've missed such information quite often when adopting some package (there's some DEP for a uniform format somewhere). Also have you forwarded the patches upstream? I've added descriptions to the patches, as recommended by DEP-3. I'm not forwarding the patches upstream, as they mostly relate to debian-specific quirks and are not generally useful (specifically, one deals with Node.js being installed to /usr/bin/nodejs in Debian instead of upstream's default location at /usr/bin/node, and the other is simply to allow coffee to be installed directly in /usr/bin/coffee instead of /usr/lib/coffeescript/coffee, whereas upstream instead uses an unnecessary symlink). OK I suspected that. That's one of the important things that could live in a patch description/header ;) Have you tested your package with lintian? I'm certainly not nit-picking on Information or Pedantic tags but some of the Error/Warnings definitely look worth fixing (invoking linitan with -i additionally gives a description of the issues at hand): I've fixed as many of the warnings as I could; currently the output of lintian is: P: coffeescript-doc: no-upstream-changelog I: coffeescript-doc: extended-description-is-probably-too-short P: coffeescript: no-upstream-changelog W: coffeescript: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/cake W: coffeescript: unusual-interpreter ./usr/bin/cake #!nodejs W: coffeescript: unusual-interpreter ./usr/bin/coffee #!nodejs W: coffeescript: executable-not-elf-or-script ./usr/lib/coffeescript/optparse.js W: coffeescript: executable-not-elf-or-script ./usr/lib/coffeescript/cake.js W: coffeescript: executable-not-elf-or-script ./usr/lib/coffeescript/parser.js The unusual-interpreter errors are of course unfixable since the program only runs on nodejs, Of course there is no upstream changelog file (though there is one on the website, I could copy-paste it if desired but I don't think that's in line with Debian policy), After all that's a pedantic tag, meaning it's good to think about it to not e.g. forget shipping a changelog that is actually there, but not a warning/error/info and the warnings about executable permissions I unfortunately didn't figure out how to fix since quilt doesn't seem to be able to keep track of file permissions (if anyone has suggestions on how to store changes to the file permissions in the quilt patch set do let me know). debian/rules is just a makefile, you can call chmod from there. Not sure I'll find the time for another iteration before my next exame (April 07) Regards Christoph -- /\ ASCII Ribbon : GPG-Key ID: 0xD49AE731 \ /Campaign : CaCert Assurer X against HTML : Debian Maintainer / \ in eMails : http://www.debian.org/ http://www.christoph-egger.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: coffeescript
On 04/02/2010 05:42 AM, Christoph Egger wrote: I've added descriptions to the patches, as recommended by DEP-3. I'm not forwarding the patches upstream, as they mostly relate to debian-specific quirks and are not generally useful (specifically, one deals with Node.js being installed to /usr/bin/nodejs in Debian instead of upstream's default location at /usr/bin/node, and the other is simply to allow coffee to be installed directly in /usr/bin/coffee instead of /usr/lib/coffeescript/coffee, whereas upstream instead uses an unnecessary symlink). OK I suspected that. That's one of the important things that could live in a patch description/header ;) I've added the Forwarded: not-needed tag (described in DEP-3) to the patches to indicate that they aren't meant to be forwarded upstream. debian/rules is just a makefile, you can call chmod from there. I have added an override for dh_fixperms that does this. Thanks, Geza -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bb6821a.2090...@mit.edu
Re: RFS: coffeescript
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:44:20PM -0400, Geza Kovacs wrote: (Please CC any replies to me) Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package coffeescript. It builds these binary packages: coffeescript - interpreter and compiler for the CoffeeScript language coffeescript-doc - documentation for coffeescript Quoting Upstream Website: Disclaimer: CoffeeScript is just for fun. Until it reaches 1.0, there are no guarantees that the syntax won't change between versions. That said, it compiles into clean JavaScript (the good parts) that can use existing JavaScript libraries seamlessly, and passes through JSLint without warnings. The compiled output is quite readable — pretty-printed, with comments preserved intact. Do you think it's sensible to have that packaged in debian (and it's stable releases)? Looks rather like a volatile thing where one wants for a 1.0 before packaging to me (though that impressin is based on a quick look on the webpage so you may know better ;)) Regards Christoph -- /\ ASCII Ribbon : GPG-Key ID: 0xD49AE731 \ /Campaign : CaCert Assurer X against HTML : Debian Developer / \ in eMails : http://www.debian.org/ http://www.christoph-egger.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: coffeescript
On 04/01/2010 06:03 AM, Christoph Egger wrote: Quoting Upstream Website: Disclaimer: CoffeeScript is just for fun. Until it reaches 1.0, there are no guarantees that the syntax won't change between versions. That said, it compiles into clean JavaScript (the good parts) that can use existing JavaScript libraries seamlessly, and passes through JSLint without warnings. The compiled output is quite readable — pretty-printed, with comments preserved intact. Do you think it's sensible to have that packaged in debian (and it's stable releases)? Looks rather like a volatile thing where one wants for a 1.0 before packaging to me (though that impressin is based on a quick look on the webpage so you may know better ;)) I'd agree with your worries if this were a purely interpreted language like Python, where changes in the interpreter require entire program rewrites so that existing deployments can still run. However, this is a compiled language, which outputs to standard Javascript. Hence, even in the unlikely case that a huge change makes existing programs uncompilable (I say unlikely because coffeescript has done a good job of maintaining backwards compatibility with releases), then the existing compiled Javascript that has been deployed will still work. Since this is primarily used for short-term web development, and not huge multi-year projects, then the question of whether a program will still compile years later is less of an issue. Also note that Debian is already ripe with languages which haven't yet reached 1.0 and are still adding new syntactic features, like boo. I believe so long as there aren't Debian packages that depend on coffeescript to get compiled, the availability of this package shouldn't cause additional maintainability issues, and as with any cutting-edge development tools, it should be left up to the user whether to use them or not. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bb4aa73.7020...@mit.edu
Re: RFS: coffeescript
Hi! On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 10:15:15AM -0400, Geza Kovacs wrote: On 04/01/2010 06:03 AM, Christoph Egger wrote: Quoting Upstream Website: Disclaimer: CoffeeScript is just for fun. Until it reaches 1.0, there are no guarantees that the syntax won't change between versions. That said, it compiles into clean JavaScript (the good parts) that can use existing JavaScript libraries seamlessly, and passes through JSLint without warnings. The compiled output is quite readable — pretty-printed, with comments preserved intact. Do you think it's sensible to have that packaged in debian (and it's stable releases)? Looks rather like a volatile thing where one wants for a 1.0 before packaging to me (though that impressin is based on a quick look on the webpage so you may know better ;)) I'd agree with your worries if this were a purely interpreted language like Python, where changes in the interpreter require entire program rewrites so that existing deployments can still run. However, this is a compiled language, which outputs to standard Javascript. Hence, even in the unlikely case that a huge change makes existing programs uncompilable (I say unlikely because coffeescript has done a good job of maintaining backwards compatibility with releases), then the existing compiled Javascript that has been deployed will still work. Since this is primarily used for short-term web development, and not huge multi-year projects, then the question of whether a program will still compile years later is less of an issue. Also note that Debian is already ripe with languages which haven't yet reached 1.0 and are still adding new syntactic features, like boo. I believe so long as there aren't Debian packages that depend on coffeescript to get compiled, the availability of this package shouldn't cause additional maintainability issues, and as with any cutting-edge development tools, it should be left up to the user whether to use them or not. OK fair enough. Actually the language looks quite interesting so I'm giving it a look right now. * Could you maybe merge the changelog entries into a single one? There's no reason to increase the debian revision for every bullet-point ;) * You're using format '3.0 (quilt)' for your package so applying the patches works at extraction time and there's no need for a '--with quilt' in the rules file (also, for a --with quilt you'd need to build-depend on a correct version of the quilt package) * Your patches don't have any description on them. I've missed such information quite often when adopting some package (there's some DEP for a uniform format somewhere). Also have you forwarded the patches upstream? Have you tested your package with lintian? I'm certainly not nit-picking on Information or Pedantic tags but some of the Error/Warnings definitely look worth fixing (invoking linitan with -i additionally gives a description of the issues at hand): /--- % lintian -IE --pedantic /var/cache/pbuilder/result/coffeescript_0.5.6-6_i386.changes I: coffeescript source: quilt-patch-missing-description fix-node-is-nodejs.patch I: coffeescript source: quilt-patch-missing-description install-to-lib-coffeescript.patch E: coffeescript source: missing-build-dependency quilt (= 0.46-7~) W: coffeescript source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.8.1 (current is 3.8.4) P: coffeescript-doc: no-upstream-changelog I: coffeescript-doc: extended-description-is-probably-too-short W: coffeescript-doc: wrong-section-according-to-package-name coffeescript-doc = doc I: coffeescript-doc: possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration P: coffeescript: no-upstream-changelog W: coffeescript: manpage-has-useless-whatis-entry usr/share/man/man1/coffee.1.gz W: coffeescript: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/cake W: coffeescript: doc-base-unknown-section coffeescript:5 Development E: coffeescript: doc-base-file-references-missing-file coffeescript:8 /usr/share/doc/coffeescript/html/coffee-script.html E: coffeescript: doc-base-file-references-missing-file coffeescript:9 /usr/share/doc/coffeescript/html/*.html W: coffeescript: unusual-interpreter ./usr/bin/cake #!nodejs W: coffeescript: unusual-interpreter ./usr/bin/coffee #!nodejs W: coffeescript: executable-not-elf-or-script ./usr/lib/coffeescript/optparse.js W: coffeescript: executable-not-elf-or-script ./usr/lib/coffeescript/cake.js W: coffeescript: executable-not-elf-or-script ./usr/lib/coffeescript/parser.js \--- Regards Christoph -- /\ ASCII Ribbon : GPG-Key ID: 0xD49AE731 \ /Campaign : CaCert Assurer X against HTML : Debian Maintainer / \ in eMails : http://www.debian.org/ http://www.christoph-egger.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: coffeescript
Christoph Egger christ...@debian.org (01/04/2010): Do you think it's sensible to have that packaged in debian (and it's stable releases)? That's a question (but the other one can be replied to with a dummy RC bug prevening migration until it's in shape for a stable release, should the instability be only temporary). Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: coffeescript
On 04/01/2010 12:42 PM, Christoph Egger wrote: * Could you maybe merge the changelog entries into a single one? There's no reason to increase the debian revision for every bullet-point ;) Done, I've merged the changelogs and am now back at 0.5.6-1 * You're using format '3.0 (quilt)' for your package so applying the patches works at extraction time and there's no need for a '--with quilt' in the rules file (also, for a --with quilt you'd need to build-depend on a correct version of the quilt package) Done, I've removed the --with-quilt * Your patches don't have any description on them. I've missed such information quite often when adopting some package (there's some DEP for a uniform format somewhere). Also have you forwarded the patches upstream? I've added descriptions to the patches, as recommended by DEP-3. I'm not forwarding the patches upstream, as they mostly relate to debian-specific quirks and are not generally useful (specifically, one deals with Node.js being installed to /usr/bin/nodejs in Debian instead of upstream's default location at /usr/bin/node, and the other is simply to allow coffee to be installed directly in /usr/bin/coffee instead of /usr/lib/coffeescript/coffee, whereas upstream instead uses an unnecessary symlink). Have you tested your package with lintian? I'm certainly not nit-picking on Information or Pedantic tags but some of the Error/Warnings definitely look worth fixing (invoking linitan with -i additionally gives a description of the issues at hand): I've fixed as many of the warnings as I could; currently the output of lintian is: P: coffeescript-doc: no-upstream-changelog I: coffeescript-doc: extended-description-is-probably-too-short P: coffeescript: no-upstream-changelog W: coffeescript: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/cake W: coffeescript: unusual-interpreter ./usr/bin/cake #!nodejs W: coffeescript: unusual-interpreter ./usr/bin/coffee #!nodejs W: coffeescript: executable-not-elf-or-script ./usr/lib/coffeescript/optparse.js W: coffeescript: executable-not-elf-or-script ./usr/lib/coffeescript/cake.js W: coffeescript: executable-not-elf-or-script ./usr/lib/coffeescript/parser.js The unusual-interpreter errors are of course unfixable since the program only runs on nodejs, there is no upstream changelog file (though there is one on the website, I could copy-paste it if desired but I don't think that's in line with Debian policy), and the warnings about executable permissions I unfortunately didn't figure out how to fix since quilt doesn't seem to be able to keep track of file permissions (if anyone has suggestions on how to store changes to the file permissions in the quilt patch set do let me know). Thanks, Geza -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bb55cfa.5020...@mit.edu
RFS: coffeescript
(Please CC any replies to me) Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package coffeescript. * Package name: coffeescript Version : 0.5.6-6 Upstream Author : Jeremy Ashkenas jer...@documentcloud.org * URL : http://coffeescript.org * License : MIT Section : devel It builds these binary packages: coffeescript - interpreter and compiler for the CoffeeScript language coffeescript-doc - documentation for coffeescript The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/coffeescript - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/coffeescript/coffeescript_0.5.6-6.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me, or provided feedback on any issues with the packaging so I can fix them. Kind regards Geza Kovacs (Please CC any replies to me) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bb40884.80...@mit.edu
