Quoting Jérémy Lal (2015-05-19 02:15:29) > 2015-05-19 1:34 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk>: >> 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 > /usr/lib/nodejs/uglify-js/bin/uglifyjs > /usr/lib/nodejs/uglify-js/lib/*.js > /usr/lib/nodejs/uglify-js/package.json > > 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.
Ohh, now I get it. Thanks for spelling it out to me: I even considered if you perhaps meant to install _everything_ including the script below /usr/lib/nodejs but dismissed that as unrealistic. So Nodejs lookup path is not only /usr/lib/nodejs/$lib.js and /usr/lib/$lib/index.js but also /usr/lib/nodejs/$lib/lib/index - or does it take /usr/lib/nodejs/$lib/package.json into account (I notice there's a mention of "main" in there - which is actually incorrect now with my patching)? Or does "stuffing everything below /usr/lib/nodejs/$lib/ only solve internal lib paths, and I should still patch main lib to be .../index.js? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private