Hi Georges,
It seems that Jonas' question is unanswered for a while. Also
requirejs has two new upstream releases for months. It's needed for
packaging newer jQuery packages, please see its build dependencies[1].
Thus node-requirejs seems to be correct as a build tool.
Would you please update
Hi all,
I have prepared node-expect.js[0].
But I have some doubt about ..
This module is not only for node.js module, but can be used also as
simple javascript in a browser (tested and it works).
So... should we provide also a libjs-expect.js package ?
If yes.. in this package should I make a
Quoting Leo Iannacone (2014-05-08 15:44:45)
I have prepared node-expect.js[0].
But I have some doubt about ..
This module is not only for node.js module, but can be used also as
simple javascript in a browser (tested and it works).
So... should we provide also a libjs-expect.js package
On 8 May 2014 16:00, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote:
Quoting Leo Iannacone (2014-05-08 15:44:45)
I have prepared node-expect.js[0].
But I have some doubt about ..
This module is not only for node.js module, but can be used also as
simple javascript in a browser (tested and it works).
Hi all,
AFAIK.. when a binary is present in a package, the package should have
the be named as the binary.
But.. this is not so clear for node modules.
For instance, for mocha, according with javascript policy, I should
ship a package called `node-mocha' rather than one simply called
`mocha'.
Quoting Leo Iannacone (2014-05-08 19:38:57)
AFAIK.. when a binary is present in a package, the package should have
the be named as the binary.
If code project is _mainly_ that binary, then yes. But for project
known and Shit with binary the_shit, I'd name the package shit.
But.. this is
