Re: Cleaning up the repository. How does the community feel about it?

[David G <..hidden..>]

Hi Robert,

I personally don't know what issues can be caused.
The fact that Issues are know to be caused by minor revision changes in
dojo was raised by John (freelock) and was based on his extensive
experience with dojo over the years.

Obviously if a distribution provided instance of dojo is use, we
(LedgerSMB) have no control over the use of any minor versions that may
be available.
Yes we could institute checks in our code for a dojo version string,
then use different functions to allow for any know differences, but that
would require us having the manpower to test against all possible
versions of dojo, then write variations of any affected code.

Personally I would rather include our version of the dojo library so we
can free up developer time to work on other things.

I understand that debian policy prevents copies of libraries being
included in packages.
What we are proposing is not to include a copy of dojo, but a customised
version of dojo.
This is necessary to improve performance, and it should also bring some
security benefits as well, just due to the decrease in exposure (less
lines of code in our modified dojo)

Dojo source provides the tools to build the modified version, it is
considered a normal thing to do.

I am sure that John will be able to provide some examples of issues he
has seen in the past.

Of course, if someone wishes to install with a system instance of dojo
it would just be a matter of removing the provided custom version, and
creating a symlink.
At that point any unexpected UI behavior would need to be tracked down
and fixed, unless the owner of the installation is going to provide
resources to trackdown and fix these issues, this places additional load
on the devs.
If we were only targetting a single platform (OS) this would be
acceptable, but we have user installations on quite a variety of
platforms and potentially would need to cater for a different set of
issues on every platform.

In my eyes just the performance gains by using a customized dojo are
enough that I would not want to use a system version.

Regards
David G

On 02/01/16 01:45, Robert James Clay wrote:
> On Thursday, December 31, 2015 09:50:59 AM David G wrote:
>> It is worth pointing out that it is undesirable to use an OS package to
>> provide dojo as there are known to be issues from minor release to minor
>> release that would break LedgerSMB. 
>   What are those issues and how do they break LedgerSMB? That is;  how is that 
> being tested and what does that find?  And why are those minor releases"  being 
> used, if they cause such issues?
>
> And as I noted elsewhere; I have so far not seen any issues using the Debian 
> packages, although I'll admit that the operational testing I do with it is not 
> that  extensive. Nor have there been comments about such issues that I'm aware 
> of from anyone using the 1.4.x versions available at apt.ledgersmb.org.
>
> Note that the LedgerSMB source file used for the Debian v1.4.x packages are 
> repacked without the dojo related files (but after the archive is checked 
> against the gpg key), removing some 10,196 files, and sym links are installed 
> pointing to the dojo/dojo, dojo/dijit, & dojo/dojox directories from the dojo 
> Debian packages that are installed .  Note also that Debian v8 ('Jessie') has 
> dojo v1.10.2 while Debian testing currently has dojo v1.10.4.
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>   RJ Clay
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Ledger-smb-devel mailing list
> ..hidden..
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-devel
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ledger-smb-devel mailing list
..hidden..
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-devel