Zygmunt Krynicki dijo [Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 01:09:52PM +0200]: > We could use this pattern: > > libjsfoo package ships a file that is exposed as > http://*/javascript/foo/foo.min.js > > libjsfoo package ships a file that is exposed as > http://*/javascript/foo/foo.js > > A config option somewhere could allow a developer administering his > own system to serve foo.js instead of foo.min.js when accesed from > the /javascript namespace. I guess this could be done in > javascript-common.conf > > There are no symlinks involved (no maintainer scripts needed), the > administrator has control over the configuration, -dev packages are > genuinely useful to developers, non -dev packages are smaller.
In my case, I have asked some upstreams to ship the un-minified versions as part of their sources, mainly to satisfy the "prefered form of modificaiton" GPL clause. (and they have complied so far). Even if I don't ship the actual (minified or full) version in my provided packages but just in the source (as I'm depending on the systemwide library). But anyway, I don't think we should insist on having both foo.js and foo.min.js available in the binary packages. Minifying is a way of compiling, after all. We don't ship source files in our binary packages unless there is a real reason to do so. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111027151128.gh11...@gwolf.org
