Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] RFS: node-loose-envify 1.3.0

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Excerpts from Pirate Praveen's message of December 12, 2016 11:54 am:

On ശനി 10 ഡിസംബര്‍ 2016 07:43 വൈകു, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

I generally use ~ because upstream may re-release _same_ version but
with DFSG-violating pieces stripped.  Arguably that is dificult to do at
github but that is besides the point.


It is not difficult in github, you just have to remove a tag, push a new
tag.

But I don't think retroactively changing a release is a good idea or a
popular thing (do you know of any project that has done this?).


Our job is to distribute code from upstream.

When I use ~ then I allow upstream to use either approeach if they
decide to adopt our repackaging: Treat as a new version or as
repackaging of same version.

When I use + then I cannot support upstream that choose to repackage and
label it as being same version.

I have opinions on what upstream approach is the best practice to use,
but I do not want to cripple my packaging to not support other
practices.



It is not very useful to add extra steps (fix npm2deb or manually fix
every depending package) for this unlikely scenario.


If our tools do not support ~ then our tools are broken.

Example: If you want official Debian packages to also support
backports.debian.org then you will want to generally use ~ (and lintian
warns if you don't in some cases - e.g. when tracking C symbols).

- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

[x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


pgpBye8PpBpRr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] RFS: node-loose-envify 1.3.0

[Pirate Praveen]

On ശനി 10 ഡിസംബര്‍ 2016 07:43 വൈകു, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I generally use ~ because upstream may re-release _same_ version but
> with DFSG-violating pieces stripped.  Arguably that is dificult to do at
> github but that is besides the point.

It is not difficult in github, you just have to remove a tag, push a new
tag.

But I don't think retroactively changing a release is a good idea or a
popular thing (do you know of any project that has done this?).

It is not very useful to add extra steps (fix npm2deb or manually fix
every depending package) for this unlikely scenario.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] RFS: node-loose-envify 1.3.0

[Pirate Praveen]

On തിങ്കള്‍ 12 ഡിസംബര്‍ 2016 03:47 രാവിലെ, Paolo Greppi wrote:
> https://wiki.debian.org/Javascript/Repacking

I think it does not have to be specific to Javascript, so it can be just
https://wiki.debian.org/Repacking and link from
https://wiki.debian.org/UscanEnhancements




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] RFS: node-loose-envify 1.3.0

[Paolo Greppi]

On 10/12/2016 08:39, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> On ശനി 10 ഡിസംബര്‍ 2016 11:55 രാവിലെ, Paolo Greppi wrote:
>> BTW Pirate, what do you mean with "If you get it working, may be add it
>> to a wiki page." ?
> 
> Document steps to create a dfsg version in wiki,debian.org so we can
> just link to it when someone else asks the same question.

Here it is:

https://wiki.debian.org/Javascript/Repacking

It's currently not linked from https://wiki.debian.org/Javascript so
kind of hidden.

P.

-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] RFS: node-loose-envify 1.3.0

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Excerpts from Ross Gammon's message of December 10, 2016 10:14 am:

On 12/10/2016 07:26 AM, Paolo Greppi wrote:

The most popular suffix separator for dfsg is + (694 times), last comes
~dfsg (79 times) and finally -dfsg (15 times).

?


~ sorts before [a-z], + sorts after [a-z]

I have used 1.2.3-1~exp1 sometimes, because then I can use 1.2.3-1 for
the next upload to unstable once I know that it worked in experimental.

If you exclude something from the upstream tarball because it is not
allowed in Debian, then to stop repacking the tarball you need a new
fixed version (without the offending file in the tarball) to be released
upstream. Then 1.2.3+dfsg-1 makes a lot of sense, because if upstream
fix it, the next version will always be higher than 1.2.3 (e.g 1.2.4).

The only advantage to using ~ that I can think of, is if we change the
rules and the offending file was now "free", you could just drop the
~dfsg. Unless others can think of another use case?


I generally use ~ because upstream may re-release _same_ version but
with DFSG-violating pieces stripped.  Arguably that is dificult to do at
github but that is besides the point.

- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

[x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


pgpIdvrKMjXvB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] RFS: node-loose-envify 1.3.0

[Ross Gammon]

On 12/10/2016 07:26 AM, Paolo Greppi wrote:
> The most popular suffix separator for dfsg is + (694 times), last comes
> ~dfsg (79 times) and finally -dfsg (15 times).
> 
> ?

~ sorts before [a-z], + sorts after [a-z]

I have used 1.2.3-1~exp1 sometimes, because then I can use 1.2.3-1 for
the next upload to unstable once I know that it worked in experimental.

If you exclude something from the upstream tarball because it is not
allowed in Debian, then to stop repacking the tarball you need a new
fixed version (without the offending file in the tarball) to be released
upstream. Then 1.2.3+dfsg-1 makes a lot of sense, because if upstream
fix it, the next version will always be higher than 1.2.3 (e.g 1.2.4).

The only advantage to using ~ that I can think of, is if we change the
rules and the offending file was now "free", you could just drop the
~dfsg. Unless others can think of another use case?

Cheers,

Ross

-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] RFS: node-loose-envify 1.3.0

[Pirate Praveen]

On ശനി 10 ഡിസംബര്‍ 2016 11:55 രാവിലെ, Paolo Greppi wrote:
> Hi this one should be ready, please review & upload.

Uploaded, thanks!




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] RFS: node-loose-envify 1.3.0

[Pirate Praveen]

On ശനി 10 ഡിസംബര്‍ 2016 11:56 രാവിലെ, Paolo Greppi wrote:
> BTW2, can you elaborate on the difference between ~dfsg and +dfsg ?

x.y~dfsg < x.y < x.y+dfsg

So if you use ~dfsg for your package, when a dependency on this package
is specified, it has to be >= x.y~ as opposed to commonly used >= x.y
(what npm2deb does by default).



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] RFS: node-loose-envify 1.3.0

[Pirate Praveen]

On ശനി 10 ഡിസംബര്‍ 2016 11:55 രാവിലെ, Paolo Greppi wrote:
> BTW Pirate, what do you mean with "If you get it working, may be add it
> to a wiki page." ?

Document steps to create a dfsg version in wiki,debian.org so we can
just link to it when someone else asks the same question.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] RFS: node-loose-envify 1.3.0

[Paolo Greppi]

On 05/12/2016 11:46, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> On തിങ്കള്‍ 05 ഡിസംബര്‍ 2016 04:07 വൈകു, Jérémy Lal wrote:
>> Add this to debian/watch params:
>> repacksuffix=~dfsg
> 
> I think +dfsg is better here, else any module depending on it has to add
> a ~ at the end to its version. May be we make npm2deb do it
> automatically https://github.com/LeoIannacone/npm2deb/issues/40

BTW2, can you elaborate on the difference between ~dfsg and +dfsg ?

I could not find any policy / standard on that.

What I found is:
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Version
which states that:
version = [epoch:]upstream_version[-debian_revision]
epoch=unsigned integer or 0 if missing
upstream_version=A-Za-z0-9.+-:~
debian_revision=A-Za-z0-9+.~ or 0 if missing

Empirical research shows that people add dfsg, ds or debian in many
different ways to the upstream_version.

Looking at the packages in sid with architecture and64, they are added
resp. 71, 16 and 9 times without separator, for example:

4.8.0dfsg
1.06.dfsg
0.2.dfsg1
6.02.dfsg.1
0.62.dfsg2
0.12.10dfsg2
...
0.5.ds
1.45.ds2
2002.04.10ds1
3.0.19.ds1
...
0.4.2.debian1
1.2debian
5.6.debian.1
0.10.32.debian

The most popular suffix separator for dfsg is + (694 times), last comes
~dfsg (79 times) and finally -dfsg (15 times).

?

-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] RFS: node-loose-envify 1.3.0

[Paolo Greppi]

On 05/12/2016 11:41, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> On തിങ്കള്‍ 05 ഡിസംബര്‍ 2016 03:45 വൈകു, Paolo Greppi wrote:
>> It does the trick because the lintian error is gone.
> 
> But its bad for long term maintenance, any time that file changes,
> you'll have to refresh the patch.
>> I'd rather avoid dfsg rightnow because :
>> - the specific file is part of the javascript corpus the test suite runs
>> on (which we can't run at the moment anyway since it requires browserify)
>> - I don't think that makes the package "non-DFSG clean" as a whole
> 
> but the removal is for dfsg.
> 
>> - sheer ignorance: the dfsg_clean workflow being new for me
> 
> See node-levn for an example.
> 
> 1. Add Files-Excluded to copyright
> 2. Add repack options to watch
> 3. Rename to +dfsg.orig and edit the orig.tar, remove the file (I use
> graphical tools like file-roller)
> 4. Edit changelog
> 5. Import the +dfsg.orig (gbp import-orig)
> 
> If you get it working, may be add it to a wiki page.
> 
>> There are about 6 dependencies left to go plus babel + gulp as build
>> deps. The latter is the same short-term focus as
>> https://www.generosity.com/community-fundraising/debian-browserify-2 so
>> yes maybe it can be done !
> 
> This campaign did not receive much support (only 7% of the target). But
> we are still working on it. We need to complete about 30 modules to
> finish gulp. Any help in finishing that list would be awesome.
> 
> All babel modules are in a single repo, Shanavas is trying to automate
> it. But we still need to package non babel dependencies from here.
> 
> https://wiki.debian.org/Javascript/Nodejs/Tasks/babel-cli
> 
> https://wiki.debian.org/Javascript/Nodejs/Tasks/gulp needs tiny
> submodules of lodash but we need help for that
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=845227 can you try it?

Hi this one should be ready, please review & upload.

I have applied Jérémy's recipy with success: uscan is able to produce
the dfsg tarball automatically ! No need to manually edit the tarball.

BTW Pirate, what do you mean with "If you get it working, may be add it
to a wiki page." ?

P.

-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] RFS: node-loose-envify 1.3.0

[Paolo Greppi]

On 05/12/2016 11:41, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> On തിങ്കള്‍ 05 ഡിസംബര്‍ 2016 03:45 വൈകു, Paolo Greppi wrote:
>> It does the trick because the lintian error is gone.
> 
> But its bad for long term maintenance, any time that file changes,
> you'll have to refresh the patch.
>> I'd rather avoid dfsg rightnow because :
>> - the specific file is part of the javascript corpus the test suite runs
>> on (which we can't run at the moment anyway since it requires browserify)
>> - I don't think that makes the package "non-DFSG clean" as a whole
> 
> but the removal is for dfsg.
> 
>> - sheer ignorance: the dfsg_clean workflow being new for me
> 
> See node-levn for an example.
> 
> 1. Add Files-Excluded to copyright
> 2. Add repack options to watch
> 3. Rename to +dfsg.orig and edit the orig.tar, remove the file (I use
> graphical tools like file-roller)
> 4. Edit changelog
> 5. Import the +dfsg.orig (gbp import-orig)
> 
> If you get it working, may be add it to a wiki page.

Thanks Jérémy & Pirate for all the suggestions, I'll give it a try. But
I have to pause my debian activities for a couple of days first ...

>> There are about 6 dependencies left to go plus babel + gulp as build
>> deps. The latter is the same short-term focus as
>> https://www.generosity.com/community-fundraising/debian-browserify-2 so
>> yes maybe it can be done !
> 
> This campaign did not receive much support (only 7% of the target). But
> we are still working on it. We need to complete about 30 modules to
> finish gulp. Any help in finishing that list would be awesome.

I'll have a look after Thursday !

> All babel modules are in a single repo, Shanavas is trying to automate
> it. But we still need to package non babel dependencies from here.
> 
> https://wiki.debian.org/Javascript/Nodejs/Tasks/babel-cli

Quite some fun here as well, again I'll have a look after Thursday.

> https://wiki.debian.org/Javascript/Nodejs/Tasks/gulp needs tiny
> submodules of lodash but we need help for that
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=845227 can you try it?

Why they not using a good old makefile ? Anyway I have added a comment
to the bug, just my shot in the dark ...

Paolo




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] RFS: node-loose-envify 1.3.0

[Pirate Praveen]

On തിങ്കള്‍ 05 ഡിസംബര്‍ 2016 04:07 വൈകു, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> Add this to debian/watch params:
> repacksuffix=~dfsg

I think +dfsg is better here, else any module depending on it has to add
a ~ at the end to its version. May be we make npm2deb do it
automatically https://github.com/LeoIannacone/npm2deb/issues/40



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] RFS: node-loose-envify 1.3.0

[Pirate Praveen]

On തിങ്കള്‍ 05 ഡിസംബര്‍ 2016 03:45 വൈകു, Paolo Greppi wrote:
> It does the trick because the lintian error is gone.

But its bad for long term maintenance, any time that file changes,
you'll have to refresh the patch.
> I'd rather avoid dfsg rightnow because :
> - the specific file is part of the javascript corpus the test suite runs
> on (which we can't run at the moment anyway since it requires browserify)
> - I don't think that makes the package "non-DFSG clean" as a whole

but the removal is for dfsg.

> - sheer ignorance: the dfsg_clean workflow being new for me

See node-levn for an example.

1. Add Files-Excluded to copyright
2. Add repack options to watch
3. Rename to +dfsg.orig and edit the orig.tar, remove the file (I use
graphical tools like file-roller)
4. Edit changelog
5. Import the +dfsg.orig (gbp import-orig)

If you get it working, may be add it to a wiki page.

> There are about 6 dependencies left to go plus babel + gulp as build
> deps. The latter is the same short-term focus as
> https://www.generosity.com/community-fundraising/debian-browserify-2 so
> yes maybe it can be done !

This campaign did not receive much support (only 7% of the target). But
we are still working on it. We need to complete about 30 modules to
finish gulp. Any help in finishing that list would be awesome.

All babel modules are in a single repo, Shanavas is trying to automate
it. But we still need to package non babel dependencies from here.

https://wiki.debian.org/Javascript/Nodejs/Tasks/babel-cli

https://wiki.debian.org/Javascript/Nodejs/Tasks/gulp needs tiny
submodules of lodash but we need help for that
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=845227 can you try it?




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] RFS: node-loose-envify 1.3.0

[Jérémy Lal]

2016-12-05 11:15 GMT+01:00 Paolo Greppi :
> On 03/12/2016 01:33, Jérémy Lal wrote:
>> 2016-12-03 1:02 GMT+01:00 Paolo Greppi :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I packaged node-loose-envify as per this ITP:
>>> https://bugs.debian.org/846206, this is the repo:
>>> https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-javascript/node-loose-envify.git
>>>
>>> Two notes
>>> - regarding the source-is-missing error mentioned here
>>> https://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/2016-November/015929.html,
>>> I choose to delete the file with a patch
>>
>> I'm not sure it does the trick.
>> A better IMO approach is to use Files-Exclude in debian/copyright, and
>> make a proper debian/watch. Then uscan will automatically dfsg-repack
>> the orig tarball. See how some other dfsg/ds packages do that.
>
> It does the trick because the lintian error is gone.

Be careful here: lintian is a tool supposed to help you. You can do many
wrong things that pass lintian tests.

> I'd rather avoid dfsg rightnow because :
> - the specific file is part of the javascript corpus the test suite runs
> on (which we can't run at the moment anyway since it requires browserify)
> - I don't think that makes the package "non-DFSG clean" as a whole

A single tiny unessential file can make a package non-dfsg clean.
(the stupidest example being copyrighted icc profile in a test picture).

In this specific case, the file in question is protected by NON-DFSG patents.
Removing it from the upstream tarball is mandatory.

Removing it with a quilt patch actually:
- keeps the file in upstream tarball
- adds a copy of the file in the debian tarball
so it's even worse.

> - sheer ignorance: the dfsg_clean workflow being new for me
Append to the first section of debian/copyright

Comment: exclude non-dfsg patented react source code
Files-Excluded: test/react/react-with-addons-with-node_env.js

Add this to debian/watch params:
repacksuffix=~dfsg

Make sure you removed initial tarball and do
uscan --force-download
gbp import-orig ../thedfsgtarball.tar.xz

>>> - I could not get rid of the binary-without-manpage lintian warning, as
>>> the supplied CLI does not support --help I could not use help2man ...
>>
>> Then you need to build a manpage...
>> A very easy way to do so is with marked-man (convert .md to .1).
>> Leave the envify.md file in debian/ dir and build the .1 during build.
>
> Nice tool, I have created a basic manpage.

Great

>> Side note:
>> override_dh_fixperms:
>>   dh_fixperms -X debian/node-loose-envify/usr/lib/nodejs/loose-envify/cli.js
>>
>> isn't right because it makes the build non-reproducible, see
>> https://bugs.debian.org/845745
>> about why.
>
> Done
>
>> Also the description isn't really clear. Maybe a short sentence about
>> what it's about in a more general way. Is it useful for some build tool ?
>
> I gave it a try, let me know if it makes more sense.
>
> It's difficult for me to imagine the use cases of some of the modules we
> are packaging. This one I'm trying to get in because it's a dependency
> of node-invariant - and all this is to get node-yarnpkg into Stretch as
> a new package.

Much better description, thanks.

> I wonder if we can do it < 2017-01-05 ?
>
> There are about 6 dependencies left to go plus babel + gulp as build
> deps. The latter is the same short-term focus as
> https://www.generosity.com/community-fundraising/debian-browserify-2 so
> yes maybe it can be done !

Maybe, i can't really help more but i will try to keep reviewing afaic.

Jérémy


-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] RFS: node-loose-envify 1.3.0

[Paolo Greppi]

On 03/12/2016 01:33, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> 2016-12-03 1:02 GMT+01:00 Paolo Greppi :
>> Hi,
>>
>> I packaged node-loose-envify as per this ITP:
>> https://bugs.debian.org/846206, this is the repo:
>> https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-javascript/node-loose-envify.git
>>
>> Two notes
>> - regarding the source-is-missing error mentioned here
>> https://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/2016-November/015929.html,
>> I choose to delete the file with a patch
> 
> I'm not sure it does the trick.
> A better IMO approach is to use Files-Exclude in debian/copyright, and
> make a proper debian/watch. Then uscan will automatically dfsg-repack
> the orig tarball. See how some other dfsg/ds packages do that.

It does the trick because the lintian error is gone.

I'd rather avoid dfsg rightnow because :
- the specific file is part of the javascript corpus the test suite runs
on (which we can't run at the moment anyway since it requires browserify)
- I don't think that makes the package "non-DFSG clean" as a whole
- sheer ignorance: the dfsg_clean workflow being new for me

> 
>> - I could not get rid of the binary-without-manpage lintian warning, as
>> the supplied CLI does not support --help I could not use help2man ...
> 
> Then you need to build a manpage...
> A very easy way to do so is with marked-man (convert .md to .1).
> Leave the envify.md file in debian/ dir and build the .1 during build.

Nice tool, I have created a basic manpage.

> Side note:
> override_dh_fixperms:
>   dh_fixperms -X debian/node-loose-envify/usr/lib/nodejs/loose-envify/cli.js
> 
> isn't right because it makes the build non-reproducible, see
> https://bugs.debian.org/845745
> about why.

Done

> Also the description isn't really clear. Maybe a short sentence about
> what it's about in a more general way. Is it useful for some build tool ?

I gave it a try, let me know if it makes more sense.

It's difficult for me to imagine the use cases of some of the modules we
are packaging. This one I'm trying to get in because it's a dependency
of node-invariant - and all this is to get node-yarnpkg into Stretch as
a new package.

I wonder if we can do it < 2017-01-05 ?

There are about 6 dependencies left to go plus babel + gulp as build
deps. The latter is the same short-term focus as
https://www.generosity.com/community-fundraising/debian-browserify-2 so
yes maybe it can be done !

> 
> Jérémy.
> 
> 


-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] RFS: node-loose-envify 1.3.0

[Jérémy Lal]

2016-12-03 1:02 GMT+01:00 Paolo Greppi :
> Hi,
>
> I packaged node-loose-envify as per this ITP:
> https://bugs.debian.org/846206, this is the repo:
> https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-javascript/node-loose-envify.git
>
> Two notes
> - regarding the source-is-missing error mentioned here
> https://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/2016-November/015929.html,
> I choose to delete the file with a patch

I'm not sure it does the trick.
A better IMO approach is to use Files-Exclude in debian/copyright, and
make a proper debian/watch. Then uscan will automatically dfsg-repack
the orig tarball. See how some other dfsg/ds packages do that.

> - I could not get rid of the binary-without-manpage lintian warning, as
> the supplied CLI does not support --help I could not use help2man ...

Then you need to build a manpage...
A very easy way to do so is with marked-man (convert .md to .1).
Leave the envify.md file in debian/ dir and build the .1 during build.


Side note:
override_dh_fixperms:
  dh_fixperms -X debian/node-loose-envify/usr/lib/nodejs/loose-envify/cli.js

isn't right because it makes the build non-reproducible, see
https://bugs.debian.org/845745
about why.

Also the description isn't really clear. Maybe a short sentence about
what it's about in a more general way. Is it useful for some build tool ?

Jérémy.


-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel

[Pkg-javascript-devel] RFS: node-loose-envify 1.3.0

[Paolo Greppi]

Hi,

I packaged node-loose-envify as per this ITP:
https://bugs.debian.org/846206, this is the repo:
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-javascript/node-loose-envify.git

Two notes
- regarding the source-is-missing error mentioned here
https://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/2016-November/015929.html,
I choose to delete the file with a patch
- I could not get rid of the binary-without-manpage lintian warning, as
the supplied CLI does not support --help I could not use help2man ...

Please someone more experienced than me review it and if it's OK sponsor
its upload.

Thanks,

Paolo



-- 
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel