Hi Paul, Quoting Paul Gevers (2022-06-02 09:42:38) > On 02-06-2022 08:54, Pirate Praveen wrote: > > Or creating libjs-d3-dsv for browser files is a better idea. > > I didn't propose this because all other node-d3-* packages follow the > node-d3-* scheme *and* there are three reverse dependencies that would > need fixing too. I can do this if you favor this, but it looks a bit > sub-optimal.
The naming scheme used generally for JavaScript packages is to use "node-*" for packages targeted system-installed Node.js interpreter, and "libjs-*" for packages targeted browser-embedded JavaScript interpreter (where * is the NPM project name when used, slightly normalized). Packages that serve both roles should provide one of the package names as a virtual package. Reason it is suggested to rename here is exactly in case this particular package does *not* serve both roles: Then the proper aproach is to provide separate packages, appropriately named. ...but only if you go down the road of keeping the Node.js executables. Thanks a lot for your work on these D3 packages! - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
-- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
