Re: Code in Description [Was: Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED]

2017-02-11 Thread Don Armstrong
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017, Pirate Praveen wrote: > On വെള്ളി 10 ഫെബ്രുവരി 2017 09:36 വൈകു, Don Armstrong wrote: > > I wonder if this was a case of the code not being sufficient > > description? [IE, code and a good text description would be accepted, > > but code only was not?] > > These packages were

Re: Code in Description [Was: Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED]

2017-02-11 Thread Ian Jackson
Pirate Praveen writes ("Re: Code in Description [Was: Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED]"): > These packages were rejected and their description is given below. I agree with ftpmaster's decision in all of these cases. In the case of node-is-obj and node-is

Re: Code in Description [Was: Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED]

2017-02-10 Thread Pirate Praveen
On വെള്ളി 10 ഫെബ്രുവരി 2017 09:36 വൈകു, Don Armstrong wrote: > This is news to me. Policy §5.6.13 ('Description') doesn't explicitely > forbid using code (or pseudocode), and even allows for verbatim lines > (which start with two or more spaces). > > I wonder if this was a case of the code not

Code in Description [Was: Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED]

2017-02-10 Thread Don Armstrong
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, Pirate Praveen wrote: > Thanks for this description. I will try to write more description, but > its not very easy always especially when you are not allowed to write > sample code. [...] > When you are not allowed to write 2 lines of sample code when that is > the best

Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-02-10 Thread Thomas Goirand
On 02/10/2017 04:32 AM, Pirate Praveen wrote: > On വ്യാഴം 09 ഫെബ്രുവരി 2017 11:48 വൈകു, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> It doesn't matter that your package is small and that users won't normally >> install it directly. It's still mandated that it includes a description, and >> ftpmasters are only

Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-02-09 Thread Kyle Robbertze
On 10/02/2017 06:47, Pirate Praveen wrote: > On വെള്ളി 10 ഫെബ്രുവരി 2017 09:51 രാവിലെ, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Pirate Praveen writes: >>> On വ്യാഴം 09 ഫെബ്രുവരി 2017 11:48 വൈകു, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> [...] > > Thanks for this description. I will try to write

Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-02-09 Thread Pirate Praveen
On വെള്ളി 10 ഫെബ്രുവരി 2017 09:51 രാവിലെ, Russ Allbery wrote: > Pirate Praveen writes: >> On വ്യാഴം 09 ഫെബ്രുവരി 2017 11:48 വൈകു, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > >>> It doesn't matter that your package is small and that users won't >>> normally install it directly. It's

Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-02-09 Thread Russ Allbery
Pirate Praveen writes: > On വ്യാഴം 09 ഫെബ്രുവരി 2017 11:48 വൈകു, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> It doesn't matter that your package is small and that users won't >> normally install it directly. It's still mandated that it includes a >> description, and ftpmasters are

Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-02-09 Thread Pirate Praveen
On വ്യാഴം 09 ഫെബ്രുവരി 2017 11:48 വൈകു, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > It doesn't matter that your package is small and that users won't normally > install it directly. It's still mandated that it includes a description, and > ftpmasters are only doing their job. That is like treating debian

Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-02-09 Thread Pirate Praveen
On വെള്ളി 10 ഫെബ്രുവരി 2017 03:23 രാവിലെ, Vincent Bernat wrote: > Browserify takes code from npm (targetted at Node) and makes it run > in the browser. Node comes with an API of its own that is not available > in browsers. Browserify provides this code. There is nothing to patch > since browserify

Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-02-09 Thread Marvin Renich
* Vincent Bernat [170209 16:54]: > Browserify takes code from npm (targetted at Node) and makes it run > in the browser. Node comes with an API of its own that is not available > in browsers. Browserify provides this code. There is nothing to patch > since browserify is not a

Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-02-09 Thread Vincent Bernat
❦ 9 février 2017 22:23 +0100, Adam Borowski  : >> > "This module is a dependency for browserify." is already present in >> > the description. And short description says "tty module from node core >> > for browsers". >> >> Then again, they could try looking at the code,

Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-02-09 Thread Adam Borowski
(slightly trimmed To:/CC: -- no redundant copies please!) On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 08:55:25PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > Pirate Praveen writes: > > "This module is a dependency for browserify." is already present in > > the description. And short description says "tty

Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-02-09 Thread Holger Levsen
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 07:18:54PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > PS: many thanks to the ftpmaster for doing a (so often) thankless job! Indeed! -- cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-02-09 Thread Philip Hands
Pirate Praveen writes: ... > "This module is a dependency for browserify." is already present in > the description. And short description says "tty module from node core > for browsers". That presumably makes sense to people that know what node is. I'm somewhat aware

Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-02-09 Thread Simon McVittie
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 at 16:47:05 -, Pirate Praveen wrote: > And short > description says "tty module from node core for browsers". Does this mean that this is a polyfill/compatibility shim for running JavaScript designed for node.js in non-node.js environments like browsers? If so, I can't

Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-02-09 Thread Ian Jackson
Pirate Praveen writes ("Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED"): > Thorsten Alteholz <ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org> wrote: > > I am sorry, but I don't understand why you module makes sense. > > Please add a more detailed des

Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-02-09 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
Hi, On 09/02/17 17:47, Pirate Praveen wrote: > Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > >> Hi, > >> I am sorry, but I don't understand why you module makes sense. >> Please add a more detailed description to your debian/control. > > This is seriously becoming too much.

Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

2017-02-09 Thread Pirate Praveen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > > Hi, > > I am sorry, but I don't understand why you module makes sense. > Please add a more detailed description to your debian/control. This is seriously becoming too much. "This