2015-05-19 1:34 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk>:
> Quoting Jérémy Lal (2015-05-18 19:33:34)
> > 2015-05-18 19:19 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk>:
> >> Quoting Jérémy Lal (2015-05-06 14:08:09)
> >>> 2015-05-06 13:31 GMT+02:00 Pau Garcia i Quiles <pgqui...@elpauer.org>:
> >>>> The package.json file does exist:
> >> [...]
> >>>> /usr/lib/nodejs/uglify-js/package.json
> >>> that's why it's usually simpler and safer to install original
> >>> hierarchy with
> >>> - package.json
> >>> - lib/*
> >>> in /usr/lib/nodejs/uglify-js, instead of changing it and not
> >>> installing package.json.
> >> You are barking up the wrong tree, Jérémy: package.js *is* installed
> >> at the *correct* location. Please read what Pau Garcia wrote.
> >> Problem is upstream script expecting to be installed in ~/bin/ and
> >> assuming its library is in ~/lib/
> >> I will extend 2001 to also cover hardcoded path to parse.js.
> > What i was saying was that files were expected to be installed in
> > /usr/lib/nodejs/uglify-js/package.json
> > /usr/lib/nodejs/uglify-js/lib/*
> > which is fine for me but i saw you prefer installing them up one dir +
> > patch.
> Please actually look at the uglifyjs source package - or just read
> closely the original bugreport - before you comment further. I think
> you will then agree that your remarks are totally irrelevant here.
Well, i actually did that.
So if you've setup the files with the same tree as in source, that is
and a symlink /usr/lib/nodejs/uglify-js/bin/uglifyjs -> /usr/bin/uglifyjs
there wouldn't be a need for the patches.
As i said, i'm not questionning the dislike for keeping the original tree,
i'm just saying that it avoids adding more patches.