[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#622628: Bug#622628: Bug#622628: Bug#622628: Bug#622628: npm no longer works

[Jérémy Lal]

On 06/03/2012 18:54, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 12-03-06 at 06:32pm, Jérémy Lal wrote:
>> On 06/03/2012 18:06, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> On 12-03-06 at 05:40pm, Jérémy Lal wrote:
>>>> On 06/03/2012 17:14, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>>>>> I might (hopefully...) have time to help, and I will need this. Is 
>>>>> there any roadmap on what is missing to get an updated npm 
>>>>> package?
>>>>
>>>> There is :
>>>>
>>>> * package dependencies that are in node_modules
>>>> * make sure the license is free (MIT +no-false-attribs)
>>>>
>>>> I update regularly the collab-maint git repository, and npm 1.1.4 
>>>> package built from it is usable.
>>>
>>> Related to that: Please don't update in git the copyright_hints file 
>>> if changes not reflected in copyirhgt file.  The very point of that 
>>> hints file is to track changes.
>>
>> In the case of npm, i intended to ignore changes in ./node_modules 
>> since what's inside must be either reviewed or excluded from tarball.
>>
>> I usually check all new files, and differences, manually.
>> I am not perfect at this, though.
> 
> Ah, come on - this is bigger than nitpicking, so not about perfection: 
> Silencing warnings before solving the underlying problem is wrong IMO. 
> Makes sense to ignore tracking excluded parts only when truly excluded, 
> not when deciding to exlude in a future packaging release.
>
>>> Also, please do not blindly bump format hint in first line of 
>>> copyright file.  License field is not allowed to contain spaces in 
>>> final release of the format.
>>
>> Lintian warnings about copyright format let me naively think the 
>> syntax was strictly checked...
> 
> Lintian should only ever be considered to help catch rough edges you 
> might have otherwise missed, i.e. helps improve quality of packaging but 
> not to be trusted to _assure_ high quality packaging.
>
>>> Oh, and that fork or Expat license seems to have a flaw: It is not 
>>> clear whether it talks only about the original author or any 
>>> subsequent author.  I would recommend upstream to not try hack 
>>> legalese but instead simply document clearly a friendly _request_ to 
>>> do do same as now codified in license.
>>
>> I will forward that remark and recommandation to Isaac.
>> He's hard to convince for now.
> 
> Yeah, I got the impression that he holds strong principles.  I tried 
> elaborate a bit, hope it makes sense also to him. :-)

His reply is attached.

Jérémy.


-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Isaac Schlueter <i at izs.me>
Subject: Re: MIT +no-false-attribs
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:20:50 -0800
Size: 14684
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/attachments/20120306/bc927df4/attachment-0001.mht>