Hi Marcelo and team,
2014-04-17 2:05 GMT+02:00 Emilien Klein emilien+deb...@klein.st:
Hi Marcelo and team,
On 03/22/2014 09:15 PM, Emilien Klein wrote:
[snip]
Regarding repackaging the upstream to remove the minified file:
Since the source of the minified file is included in the tarball, we
Hi Daniel,
2014-05-05 0:32 GMT+02:00 Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net:
On 05/04/2014 05:31 PM, Emilien Klein wrote:
No other comments from the team on Jérémy's proposal?
If the upstream tarball has both the original and minified javascript, I
don't think we need to actively re-pack
Hi team,
I've packaged node-iconv usefull for iconv-lite build.
Can you review it ?
It packages also https://www.gnu.org/software/libiconv/
The files are on
https://alioth.debian.org/anonscm/git/pkg-javascript/node-iconv.git
Regards,
Matthew
___
Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 10:09:19)
2014-05-05 0:32 GMT+02:00 Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net:
On 05/04/2014 05:31 PM, Emilien Klein wrote:
No other comments from the team on Jérémy's proposal?
If the upstream tarball has both the original and minified javascript, I
Let's back on discussing should.js... :)
Is someone working on? :)
L.
___
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
Le lundi 05 mai 2014 à 11:20 +0200, Leo Iannacone a écrit :
Let's back on discussing should.js... :)
Is someone working on? :)
Oh sorry i didn't reply sooner.
I was on my way to upload it and then realized libjs-should couldn't be
packaged because browserify is not available in debian.
I then
Le lundi 05 mai 2014 à 10:52 +0200, Matthew Pideil a écrit :
Hi team,
I've packaged node-iconv usefull for iconv-lite build.
Can you review it ?
It packages also https://www.gnu.org/software/libiconv/
The files are on
https://alioth.debian.org/anonscm/git/pkg-javascript/node-iconv.git
Hi Jonas,
2014-05-05 11:07 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk:
Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 10:09:19)
2014-05-05 0:32 GMT+02:00 Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net:
On 05/04/2014 05:31 PM, Emilien Klein wrote:
No other comments from the team on Jérémy's proposal?
If
On 5 May 2014 12:34, Matthew Pideil matthew.pid...@teledetection.fr wrote:
* install lib directory instead of lib/iconv.js
* if not, fix the main path in package.json
* or add debian/links with
usr/lib/nodejs/iconv/iconv.js usr/lib/nodejs/iconv/index.js
I don't understand what you suggest:
Hi team,
I've packaged node-iconv usefull for iconv-lite build.
Can you review it ?
It packages also https://www.gnu.org/software/libiconv/
The files are on
https://alioth.debian.org/anonscm/git/pkg-javascript/node-iconv.git
You forgot to push upstream branch.
The
Assalam alaikum and may the peace of gracious Allah be with you and
your family, please I have a problem which I need a help from you and
decided to write you for help
Good day, Am Alhaji Ouatta Akim;Do not be surprised! I got your email
contact via the World Email On-line Directory I am exchange
FYI: The status of the uglifyjs source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 1.3.4-1
Current version: 1.3.5-1
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a day you will
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:10:16 +0200
Source: node-serve-static
Binary: node-serve-static
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.1.0-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Javascript Maintainers
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 22:08:48 +0200
Source: node-dryice
Binary: node-dryice
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.4.10-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Javascript Maintainers
Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 12:16:25)
2014-05-05 11:07 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk:
[skipping parts on who said what: lacks consensus]
I see no need for this team to have a policy more strict than Debian
generally regarding tarball repackaging.
It's not about being more
FYI: The status of the pdf.js source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 0.8.37+dfsg-1
Current version: 1.0.21+dfsg-1+sid1
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a day
On 05/05/2014 06:16 AM, Emilien Klein wrote:
It's not about being more strict.
It's about explicitly mentioning a requirement that is not clear to a
number of our co-packagers.
FWIW, if the exclusions in debian/copyright (those mentioned on the
wiki) interact properly with uscan, and if the
2014-05-05 18:59 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk:
Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 12:16:25)
2014-05-05 11:07 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk:
[skipping parts on who said what: lacks consensus]
I see no need for this team to have a policy more strict than Debian
generally
Hi,
[
] if the uscan-based repackaging
is deterministic (e.g. run it twice on the upstream tarball and get the
same repacked tarball, byte-for-byte)
The upcoming devscripts version, providing the new mk-origtargz script,
should ensure this behavior (if no --repack is provided, i.e., if the
Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 20:57:39)
2014-05-05 18:59 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk:
Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 12:16:25)
2014-05-05 11:07 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk:
[skipping parts on who said what: lacks consensus]
I see no need for this team to
Hi all,
about source-map module,
I have found the following in lib/source-map/base64-vlq.js
/*
* Copyright 2011 Mozilla Foundation and contributors
* Licensed under the New BSD license. See LICENSE or:
* http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
*
* Based on the Base 64 VLQ
Le lundi 05 mai 2014 à 23:08 +0200, Leo Iannacone a écrit :
Hi all,
about source-map module,
I have found the following in lib/source-map/base64-vlq.js
/*
* Copyright 2011 Mozilla Foundation and contributors
* Licensed under the New BSD license. See LICENSE or:
*
2014-05-05 21:31 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk:
Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 20:57:39)
2014-05-05 18:59 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk:
Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 12:16:25)
2014-05-05 11:07 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk:
[skipping parts on who said
On 5 May 2014 23:20, Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org wrote:
The note says: Based on the Base 64 VLQ implementation in Closure Compiler,
should I report this in debian/copryright ?
Yes, the file has two copyright holders (and two licenses which happen
to be identical).
Good! (locally done, I
Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 23:35:34)
2014-05-05 21:31 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk:
Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 20:57:39)
Or do we really want to have this debate started again for each new
package asking the team to be reviewed?
I believe we need not have same
Le mardi 06 mai 2014 à 02:57 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 23:35:34)
2014-05-05 21:31 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk:
Quoting Emilien Klein (2014-05-05 20:57:39)
Or do we really want to have this debate started again for each new
package
26 matches
Mail list logo
