Howdy Steve, On 09-Sep-2010, Ben Finney wrote: > Per Debian policy §4.13 “Convenience copies of code”, the jQuery > files should not be duplicated in this package. Instead, Coverage > should use them from the packaged jQuery libraries.
I've followed the instructions in the README.Debian for ‘libjs-jquery’ to use it from HTML files generated by ‘python-coverage’, but without success. Using the attribute ‘src="/javascript/jquery/jquery.js"’ failed; the script silently fails to load. I could onyl get it to work with ‘src="/usr/share/javascript/jquery/jquery.js"’. What is the expected context for following the instructions in the ‘libjs-jquery’ README.Debian? Could that document be updated to be explicit about what that context is, and perhaps the limitations of where that advice holds true? How would you recommend a package like ‘python-coverage’ make use of the ‘libjs-jquery’ code? There is no server expected in this use. Rather, the tool generates an HTML report which, in the upstream code, gets the jQuery library copied into every such report. The HTML documents then reference the jQuery libraries directly from the same directory, with the intention that the report directory can be moved anywhere, even to a different machine, and still work since the jQuery libraries stay with the report. Is this a case where the package should not modify the upstream usage of the jQuery library? -- \ “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do | `\ it from religious conviction.” —Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), | _o__) Pensées, #894. | Ben Finney <b...@benfinney.id.au>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
