On 11/03/2016 10:48 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The gory details are described in
>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bzed/pkg-nagios-plugins-contrib/master/debian/README.source
>> in case you're interested.
>
> Ah, interesting. That's the first success story I've heard. Have you had
> any tr
Bernd Zeimetz writes:
> On 11/02/2016 02:04 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> There have been various efforts to aggregate tiny packages together
>> into larger packages in the past. I'm familiar with some of those
>> efforts on the Perl team. My impression is that, in every case where
>> upstream was
On 11/02/2016 02:04 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> There have been various efforts to aggregate tiny packages together into
> larger packages in the past. I'm familiar with some of those efforts on
> the Perl team. My impression is that, in every case where upstream was
> not doing the same aggregati
On 11/03/2016 09:37 PM, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 11/02/2016 11:59 AM, Scott Leggett wrote:
>> Actually, node is in a league of its own in this regard:
>>
>> http://www.modulecounts.com/
>
> 492 new modules per day? are we sure we even want to start to package
> something like that!???
I don't th
On 11/02/2016 11:59 AM, Scott Leggett wrote:
> Actually, node is in a league of its own in this regard:
>
> http://www.modulecounts.com/
492 new modules per day? are we sure we even want to start to package
something like that!???
>
--
Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/L
Arturo Borrero Gonzalez writes ("Re: Lots and lots of tiny node.js packages
[and 1 more messages]"):
> On 3 November 2016 at 18:50, Ian Jackson
> just created this:
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/TinyPackages
Thanks. That's already useful.
Ian.
--
Ian JacksonThe
On 3 November 2016 at 18:50, Ian Jackson
wrote:
>
> Thanks, Russ, for a very good answer to my question.
>
> Can we keep it somewhere ?
>
just created this:
https://wiki.debian.org/TinyPackages
feel free to add more content.
Antonio Terceiro writes ("Re: Lots and lots of tiny node.js packages"):
> This is not a personal response to you, I am just pigging back on your
> email.
...
> As a regular reader of debian-devel, I must say I am frustrated by this
> discussion being raised yet another time.
Hello Ian,
This is not a personal response to you, I am just pigging back on your
email.
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 08:50:38PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Sruthi Chandran writes ("Bug#840937: ITP: node-kind-of -- Get the native type
> of a value"):
> > * URL : https://github.com/jonschl
Russ Allbery writes:
...
>> The web ecosystem is still changing rapidly, with WebAssembly coming
>> soon, so probably things are going to look very different for the
>> Debian buster development cycle.
>
> Indeed.
>
> I do think the Node community takes this too far, with way too many
> micropack
On 2016-11-02.07:41, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 12:04:27AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Nov 01, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >
> > > Can you explain why you don't aggregate these into bigger packages,
> > > for use in Debian ?
> > Because the node.js ecosystem is toxic and br
On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 12:04:27AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Nov 01, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > Can you explain why you don't aggregate these into bigger packages,
> > for use in Debian ?
> Because the node.js ecosystem is toxic and broken in encouraging
> relasing software which embeds very
Paul Wise writes:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> If upstream themselves aggregates, then this works well. (See, for
>> instance, TeX Live, which is basically an upstream aggregation of
>> independently-released packages.) That gets its own version number and
>> its own
On 2016, നവംബർ 2 4:34:27 AM IST, m...@linux.it wrote:
>On Nov 01, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> Can you explain why you don't aggregate these into bigger packages,
>> for use in Debian ?
>Because the node.js ecosystem is toxic and broken in encouraging
>relasing software which embeds very specific ve
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> If upstream themselves aggregates, then this works well. (See, for
> instance, TeX Live, which is basically an upstream aggregation of
> independently-released packages.) That gets its own version number and
> its own unique existence and som
Ian Jackson writes:
> Our systems are not really set up for so many packages. They were
> designed with the assumption that a package would represent a
> substantial amount of upstream work, so that the Debian overhead is
> modest by comparison.
> Can you explain why you don't aggregate these i
Quoting Eric Cooper (2016-11-01 23:24:48)
> I see that a similarly large number of smallish libraries are getting
> packaged for golang. When I first looked into it, and maybe it's
> still the case, these were only to allow other Debian packages written
> in Go to be compiled; developers were s
On Nov 01, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Can you explain why you don't aggregate these into bigger packages,
> for use in Debian ?
Because the node.js ecosystem is toxic and broken in encouraging
relasing software which embeds very specific versions of lots of tiny
libraries, and because Debian is ideol
I see that a similarly large number of smallish libraries are getting
packaged for golang. When I first looked into it, and maybe it's
still the case, these were only to allow other Debian packages written
in Go to be compiled; developers were still encouraged to use the Go
package ecosystem ("go
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 08:50:38PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> These are tiny packages and there seem to be lots and lots and lots of
> them.
I agree, but I'll play the devil's advocate here for a while:
> Every new source package and binary package is (or causes):
> * An entry in Sources and P
Sruthi Chandran writes ("Bug#840937: ITP: node-kind-of -- Get the native type
of a value"):
> * URL : https://github.com/jonschlinkert/kind-of
Pirate Praveen writes ("Bug#842129: ITP: node-path-type -- Check if a path is a
file, directory, or symlink"):
> * URL : https://
21 matches
Mail list logo
