On ഞായര് 25 ഫെബ്രുവരി 2018 02:46 വൈകു, Bastian Blank wrote: > Hi > > On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 02:00:37PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: >> On ശനി 24 ഫെബ്രുവരി 2018 08:43 വൈകു, Pirate Praveen wrote: >>> On ശനി 24 ഫെബ്രുവരി 2018 04:30 വൈകു, Chris Lamb wrote: >>>> Author: Bastian Blank >>>> Version: 80+dfsg2-2 >>>> Timestamp: 2017-12-15 15:15:24.424738+00:00 >>>> >>>> REJECT no need to have with one just two symlinks in the node.js path >>>> >>> But we need package.json installed in default nodejs path >>> (/usr/lib/nodejs) for node tools like webpack to find these files. It >>> just adds extra custom code to make these files visible to webpack which >>> I'd really like to avoid. Nodejs modules follow a common standard and >>> having to add custom code to other packages is not good in my opinion. >>> I'd like to hear from other javascript team members on this. > If you have one user installing 10MB of code, you maybe waste this 10MB. > If you have 1M users download packages files with this 1k entry, you > waste 1GB every time. > > Bastian > Does other ftp masters agree with this assessment of considering the size of the package as the only criteria to accept or reject a package? I don't agree with forcing other contributors to do extra, non standard, hacks instead of following the standards were applicable.
node-three is the standard way for every node tools including webpack to find this package. Having to replicate this structure for every depending package is not acceptable. I have not objected to every rejection, where it made sense I have already embedded some modules (is-svg, unique-slug for example, and switching to a embed first and package on second dependency approach in general), but I don't agree with this case.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
