On May 21, 2013, at 01:30 PM, Ben Finney wrote: >> I'm confused though because if those block bug packages aren't packaged for >> Debian yet (they're wnpp), then how can they be duplicated library code? > >Duplicated in other packages. (e.g. ‘jquery.hotkeys.js’ is in Debian's >‘wordpress’, ‘spotweb’, etc.) > >More generally, the problem isn't necessarily that the code is duplicated. >The problem is that the code is bundled in with a work, yet the maintainers >of that work (‘python-coverage’) aren't the maintainers of that bundled >code (e.g. the ‘isonscreen’ library). > >The solution does not entail adding more Debian packages bundling library >code that is not maintained by the package upstream maintainers.
I fully agree, at least as a goal. It's a bit of a shame that this has to block upgrading python-coverage when the problem already exists in other packages. I don't have any particular burning desire to package a bunch of JavaScript. ;/ >> Can't we get coverage 3.6 into Debian, with enabled Python 3 support now? > >If you can see a way to do it without adding those libraries in the >package, sure. I think it would not be worthwhile to bundle them with >‘python-coverage’. I don't personally use any of the html stuff in coverage, so for me, if it's just a degradation in the html output, I won't care. Others might, but I'll let them fix the JavaScript packaging issues. I just want a modern (and Python 3 compatible!) coverage package. Cheers, -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
