On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 11:55:16AM -0400, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote: > On 2024-09-25 15:20, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > Package: lintian > > Version: 2.118.2 > > Severity: normal > > > > With the node-async 3.2.6+dfsg-* upload, libjs-async has disappeared > > from unstable, and once it migrates to testing, it will be gone from > > testing too. Please can this lintian warning be updated to refer to > > node-async instead of libjs-async (and node-async itself should > > presumably have an override in lintian for this warning). > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Julian > > > > Hi, > > Thanks for opening this bug. I'm not sure recommending people use node-async > is the right thing to do? > > libjs-async provided /usr/share/javascript/async/async.js and > /usr/share/javascript/async/async.min.js, which is not provided by > node-async itself. > > I'm not very familiar with the JS ecosystem, but it seems a package > maintainer that would want to replace an embedded copy of async.js thus > couldn't use the new package. > > Maybe we could just drop the recommendation altogether? > > Happy to make the change you propose if I'm wrong though. > > Cheers,
Hi Louis-Philippe, Good question! Presumably people would have hand-modified their code to include a symlink to the file in /usr/share/javascript; the equivalent file in node-async is /usr/share/nodejs/async/dist/async.js which "should" do the same thing, so people "should" just have to update their link (but no guarantees; I'm also not a JavaScript expert!). So either drop the recommendation altogether or point to node-async (perhaps with softer wording than a recommendation?). Best wishes, Julian
