[Pkg-javascript-devel] JS policy: repackaging upstream tarball when minified js files are present (was: Call for review: should.js packages)

[Emilien Klein]

Hi Jonas,

2014-05-05 11:07 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk>:
> Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 10:09:19)
>> 2014-05-05 0:32 GMT+02:00 Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg at fifthhorseman.net>:
>> > On 05/04/2014 05:31 PM, Emilien Klein wrote:
>> >> No other comments from the team on Jérémy's proposal?
>> >
>> > If the upstream tarball has both the original and minified javascript, I
>> > don't think we need to actively re-pack the upstream tarball to get rid
>> > of the minified javascript, any more than we need to actively re-pack
>> > upstream source that includes .png icon sources alongside their .svg source.
>> >
>> > We should not shipping the upstream-minified files in our .debs  -- we
>> > should re-minify the canonical source and ship the output of that step,
>> > if we need to ship minified files.
>>
>> The current policy is to repackage the upstream tarball if it contains
>> a minified file, and regenerate the minified files as part of the
>> build process.
>> This has been debated in March (please see the first message on this
>> email thread for details).
>
>> Although my original position is the same as what you outline, the
>> outcome of the discussion is that the current policy will not be
>> changed. I am thus currently pushing to get the policy formalized, by
>> explicitly referencing it on our policy page.
>
> What exactly do you mean by "formalized"?

By formalized, I mean "written clearly for everyone to see".
Since we're holding these discussions inside the JS team for a number
of new packages, it feels appropriate to have a place we can direct
folks to, as in "you should remove the minified js files, as explained
on our policy page, see httpYYY"

> I believe Jérémy suggested improving the Debian-wide documentation for
> best practices - Developers Reference.

Jérémy says "could also go in developers reference or best packaging
practices ?". I understand "also" as being "in addition to our policy
page" which is what I proposed in my first email in this thread.
This email thread started as a rename of the reviewing of the
should.js package, so as not to start yet again the entire debate as
we did in March/April with jquery-coolfieldset and jquery-lazyload.
I'll let Jérémy further explain his view if I'm misinterpreting his
intent behind the proposal of the text blob.

> Daniel is talking about Debian Policy.

I don't see that in Daniel's message, and I don't think it matters in
this discussion. Daniel holds the view (similar to mine at the start
of this debate in March) that we shouldn't need to remove the minified
js files from the upstream tarball.
That's exactly the point of wanting to have explictly written on our
policy page "thou shall remove the minified file from the upstream
tarball", since it is pretty clear to me that a lot of our Debian
colleagues don't share this view. If we believe this is the correct
way to go, let's at least start by having it mentioned explicitly on
our project's policy, and then push further to update the Debian-wide
documentation for best practices.

> Seems you are talking about a policy for this team.

Yes, as stated in my first message (and a couple before that, when we
were debating this last month)

> I see no need for this team to have a policy more strict than Debian
> generally regarding tarball repackaging.

It's not about being more strict.
It's about explicitly mentioning a requirement that is not clear to a
number of our co-packagers.

To summarize: our policy page currently mentions "This document is
still work in progress.
Please check the mailing list archives for the latest discussions about it."
I am proposing we update the policy page to refer to the various
discussions held on said mailing list, so that it becomes more visible
for packagers wanting to join the team that minified files should be
removed from the upstream package.

The next step after having the policy page updated is to audit all our
team-maintained packages, to see if any still contain
upstream-provided minified files, and file RC bugs against them (and
then fixing the bugs ;) ). I don't want to start on that project
before it is crystal-clear that minified files are to be removed, and
having the policy-page updated is a good way to make this clear.

Let me know if you disagree with this, and if so what your suggestion
is to make this clear to packagers joining the team.
    +Emilien