You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'm looking for your feedback, and would welcome a dialog on what types of packages belong in bpkg. While I don't think a heavy-handed approach is ideal, some guidelines might be in order to help those coming in and to prevent "package spam".
Some thoughts:
aliases probably don't belong in bpkg
anything that you currently run from your ~/bin would probably be a good candidate
bash functions that must be sourced and run in the current shell might be good candidates, but I'd want some level of scrutiny that those are being evaluated for security.
Here's an example of a function I source in my profile:
function mcd() {
mkdir $1
cd $1
}
And here's an example of a function I wouldn't want in my profile:
Another thing I noticed when creating node-reinstall is that I forgot to make the file executable, and bpkg didn't do this for me during the installation. Probably worth opening an issue on that, and providing it in the guide here.
I can see the reasoning behind that. We should probably add that to the package guidelines in that case.
The issue I ran into after I'd added node-reinstall to bpkg was that it was being installed globally into /usr/local/bin, and since I hadn't set it to +x, when I did which node-reinstall I got nothing back.
ya I need to spend some more time to dig through the bpkg source because I'm not familiar enough with how all of it works. Can you expand a bit on what that would do? Sounds interesting...
Activity
brock commentedon Mar 11, 2015
Once there is some consensus, I'd propose we add it here: http://www.bpkg.io/guidelines/
jwerle commentedon Mar 11, 2015
+1 to all of this. I'd love to see a draft of a guidelines page too
brock commentedon Mar 11, 2015
Another thing I noticed when creating node-reinstall is that I forgot to make the file executable, and bpkg didn't do this for me during the installation. Probably worth opening an issue on that, and providing it in the guide here.
jwerle commentedon Mar 11, 2015
I'm not sure
bpkgshould be responsible for changing the permissions on a file. It is up to the creator of the package to explicitly modify the permissions or handle it in the"install"directive of thepackage.jsonfile. See https://github.com/jwerle/assert.sh/commit/51d7a0ad7bf1042b07a86de81c90b042e5aa8873#diff-b9cfc7f2cdf78a7f4b91a753d10865a2R6brock commentedon Mar 12, 2015
I can see the reasoning behind that. We should probably add that to the package guidelines in that case.
The issue I ran into after I'd added
node-reinstallto bpkg was that it was being installed globally into/usr/local/bin, and since I hadn't set it to+x, when I didwhich node-reinstallI got nothing back.brock commentedon Mar 12, 2015
@yorkie where would you add that?
brock commentedon Mar 12, 2015
thanks @yorkie
ya I need to spend some more time to dig through the bpkg source because I'm not familiar enough with how all of it works. Can you expand a bit on what that would do? Sounds interesting...
jwerle commentedon Mar 12, 2015
Haha go for it. This will enable a lot of bash packages in npm to just work
with bpkg
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015, 10:57 PM Yorkie Liu notifications@github.com wrote: