Package: improving NPM and Bower published files

[leobalter]

• Package.json using files prop: https://npmjs.org/doc/json.html#files
• Added license file to bower

[JamesMGreene]

Huh, I've never seen the files property before... that's extremely useful!

[leobalter]

I wonder why is not yet implemented on Bower, or if it is, it's not documented.

[JamesMGreene]

Speaking of which, what's the rationale behind adding the license file to the Bower main? Does that actually change anything when installing the package?

[leobalter]

I think it is needed to include the file regarding the license text

[JamesMGreene]

Right but I'm confused as to why we need to include it in the main listing...?

Doesn't Bower just include all files in a repo by default, minus any exclusions? My understanding was that main was just informational for users to see what the "main entry points" to a Bower component were.

[leobalter]

Humm, that's why I haven't found any example or documentation about the possibility to negate files in the ignore list, but I did a new research after your question and found an unusual documentation that lead me to the following phrase: "The ignore rules follow the same rules specified in the gitignore pattern spec."

So I can remove license file from main.

I'll also apply the license link to a new option on the bower.json, according to the documentation

[leobalter]

@JamesMGreene bower.json is already modified and I also noticed in the documentation the license entry doesn't accept an array of hashes like package.json.

[JamesMGreene]

Oh, so you're saying that the files included in Bower's main essentially does work similarly to NPM's files property?

Bower: main provides inclusions that cannot be excluded with ignores.
NPM: files provides inclusions, excludes everything else; inclusions CAN be excluded with an ".npmignore" file.

Is that right? I didn't realize that Bower's main actually provided any such functionality.

Sorry if this is getting confusing/frustrating for you as well. Both of these package managers need some serious documentation improvements, IMHO.

[leobalter]

It's really confusing and frustrating. :)

It looks like having a files on NPM would exclude the necessity to fill a .npmignore file/prop, except on complex cases not present on QUnit.

Before this patch, I experimented the files attribute on other repo to check it that worked. You can just try the npm install dexter (don't mind the tool, just the files). I'm not using a ignore file/prop to npm at that project.

[JamesMGreene]

I think NPM is the less confusing of the two, honestly. 😛

So was I correct about my earlier assertion?

Bower: main provides inclusions that cannot be excluded with ignores.

 
Because before this PR, I just thought that main was strictly informational.

[scottgonzalez]

@danheberden

[JamesMGreene]

From the Bower spec:

main [string|array of strings]
The primary acting files necessary to use your package. While Bower does not directly use these files, they are listed with the commands bower list --json and bower list --paths, so they can be used by build tools. Do not include minified files. Files should not be versioned (Bad: package.1.1.0.js; Good: package.js).

Related issues/discussion:

• better document main property + stricter rules bower/bower#46
• Docs - main property usage bower/bower#263

[JamesMGreene]

Looks like this is the new issue for main discussion, though:

• main property - showdown bower/bower#935

[leobalter]

I can assure you atm I am just seeing this working like magic - when I don't know how and why it works.

The main and ignore props were already there before this patch and it looks like we have to be afraid of a bower update that wouldn't include main files or those could be surpassed by the **/.* rule in the ignore list.

OMG, I've got FUD.

I don't see anything reliable we can do about it without they clarify the doubts on bower specification, like the mentioned issues. If there's something, please tell me. I am sparing like all my free time with QUnit and it's being cool so far.

[JamesMGreene]

Hopefully @danheberden can set us straight. 😉

[JamesMGreene]

Just talked to @danheberden. He confirmed that the main property currently is only informational to Bower.

This PR should be fine to merge now.

[leobalter]

rebased with the master branch

[jzaefferer]

Thanks!