Ryan Attard <frontrunner4...@gmail.com> writes: > I've been struggling with this bug, but I'm a little confused by this > bug report and the response from the maintainers.
Thank you for asking to clarify. I agree that this bug report discussion can be difficult to follow. > The source package has these JS files under in coverage/htmlfiles > (with what I'm assuming is the compatible/tested version), why aren't > they shipped in the debian package? Because they aren't used. Why aren't they used? Because it is a violation of Debian policy to install third-party bundled libraries; instead, the libraries should each have their own first-class Debian made from the source for that library. You might want to read <URL:https://bugs.debian.org/848188> describing why the library dependency is removed from the ‘python-coverage’ package. > It makes no sense to me as a user to have a critical portion of > functionality broken by default I agree, and this is discussed in the bug tracker for Coverage.py <URL:https://bitbucket.org/ned/coveragepy/issues/474/>. > (because it doesn't hard-dep on libjs-jquery-hotkeys/related JS libs, > and you can't get line-by-line reports without it), and also to depend > on a library that is also incompatible and known incompatible. I don't quite understand what you're saying there. There are incompatible libraries both claiming the “hotkeys” name, but that's already known here. > Can't you just drop the libjs* recommends and install the stuff in the > source package onto the target system? Definitely not; bundling a third-party library, especially when that is just a slightly modified version of an existing packaged library, is a violation of policy and makes security updates needlessly difficult. -- \ “Two paradoxes are better than one; they may even suggest a | `\ solution.” —Edward Teller | _o__) | Ben Finney -- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel