[Coquelicot] coquelicot contributions

[Lunar]

Konrad Mohrfeldt:
> Lunar:
> > As a Debian developper, my primary deployment target is Debian. So any
> > external JavaScript library needs to be packaged in Debian before
> > Coquelicot can depend on it.
> 
> I’ll try to keep dependencies to a minimum and stick with vanilla
> JavaScript whenever I can, but in order to do so we have to make a
> decision regarding browser support. I guess we could support all browser
> with EcmaScript 5 Support [1], which would include IE9 with only a
> single dependency to node-es6-promise (available since stretch). That
> would be everything we need to reimplement the current JavaScript code
> production-dependency-wise. Are build-dependencies required to be
> packaged in Debian as well?

One thing that is unclear to me for now: do you want to implement new
features that require reimplementing the current JavaScript code?
Except cleaner code, what is to be gained by switching to ES5?

> The js build system would introduce webpack as a build tool. Webpack
> receives an entry file, recursively resolves dependencies
> (import/require statements) and outputs a single js file that would be
> added as the only script tag in the rendered HTML page. It also
> supports a watch mode, so we could keep the original "just works™"
> behaviour if we spin up webpack when starting the development server.

I don't see a Debian package for Webpack. :(

Would you know of any Ruby library that would provide similar features?
Packaging new gems for Debian is quite easy. 

I see Debian as a ruby-uglifier package which is a wrapper for UglifyJS.
I'd rather try to avoid adding a strict build dependency on Node.js. The
above package requires Node.js for example.

> I’d like to keep my hands from the ruby codebase in order to focus on
> the other tasks, so if anyone could take care of the webpack watchmode
> integration once it’s ready that’d be awesome. 

I could have a look.

> apart from that I only have two remarks/questions:
> 
> 1. Are you fine with the separate repository where you can
>    pull my changes?

Sure. :)

> 2. If you have any comments regarding Debian compatibility just tell me.
>    I’m not familiar with most of the packaging guidelines :)

From the top of my head: watch out for the Crowford (“don't use for
evil”) license. It's non-free and caused us huge pain in the past.

-- 
Lunar
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://listes.potager.org/pipermail/coquelicot/attachments/20170107/0bfc6716/attachment.sig>