Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Javascript team policy and rejection of node-three binary package [and 1 more messages]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Pirate Praveen wrote: > > > On March 12, 2018 3:34:26 AM GMT+05:30, Bastien ROUCARIES > wrote: >>Done for node-has using node-function-bind but it break uscan for >>node-has >> >>Bill could you get a

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Javascript team policy and rejection of node-three binary package [and 1 more messages]

On March 12, 2018 3:34:26 AM GMT+05:30, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: >Done for node-has using node-function-bind but it break uscan for >node-has > >Bill could you get a glimpse, I will like to create something more >robust I think it is better to create a native

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Javascript team policy and rejection of node-three binary package [and 1 more messages]

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 9:15 PM, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 02:48:40PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: >> > * Some Javascript modules are very small, resulting in lots of small >> > packages >> >> I think we need to balance the small packages concern with

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Javascript team policy and rejection of node-three binary package [and 1 more messages]

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 02:48:40PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > > * Some Javascript modules are very small, resulting in lots of small > > packages > > I think we need to balance the small packages concern with number of > times such small packages are used. > > node-has was rejected

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Javascript team policy and rejection of node-three binary package [and 1 more messages]

On ഞായര്‍ 11 മാർച്ച് 2018 04:59 വൈകു, Simon McVittie wrote: > The reason I suggested that restriction was to avoid having contradictory > requirements: if node-foo is the naming convention for the module > that lets nodejs users require('foo'), and node-foo is also the naming > convention for a

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Javascript team policy and rejection of node-three binary package [and 1 more messages]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 at 14:48:40 +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > On വെള്ളി 09 മാർച്ച് 2018 08:39 വൈകു, Simon McVittie wrote: > > And for executables, perhaps something like this: ... > > * should not be named node-* without a suffix like -bin or -tools (?) > > I don't think there is any particular

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Javascript team policy and rejection of node-three binary package [and 1 more messages]

On വെള്ളി 09 മാർച്ച് 2018 08:39 വൈകു, Simon McVittie wrote: > I think saying "script" is perhaps unhelpful here, because outside > Javascript, that usually refers to something executable with #! at the > beginning. > > It might be clearer to think about this in terms of libraries and >

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Javascript team policy and rejection of node-three binary package [and 1 more messages]

On Fri, 09 Mar 2018 at 17:50:30 +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > How about the change given below? (is the intent clear at least even if > disagreement on content remains) > > 5. should add 'Provides: node-foo' in debian/control and install > package.json in /usr/lib/nodejs/foo, if the script is

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Javascript team policy and rejection of node-three binary package [and 1 more messages]

On വെള്ളി 09 മാർച്ച് 2018 04:48 വൈകു, Ian Jackson wrote: > But: > >> 2. We won't be able to specify a minimum version of nodejs for these >> modules. For example, node-regexpu-core required nodejs >= 6 and >> this prevented its testing migration for a long time because testing >> only had nodejs

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Javascript team policy and rejection of node-three binary package [and 1 more messages]

Pirate Praveen writes ("Re: Javascript team policy and rejection of node-three binary package"): > On ചൊവ്വ 06 മാർച്ച് 2018 07:42 വൈകു, Ian Jackson wrote: > > This could be solved by dropping the nodejs dependency from all the > > nodejs module packages and requiring top-level applications to