[Pkg-javascript-devel] Naming convention for jquery pluggins

2014-08-17 Thread Thomas Goirand
Hi, I am currently working on packaging a few JS packages which are plugins for jquery. I've noticed that none of the JS plugins include a dot, however, the plugins I am packaging do have a dot in the name. So, should I use: libjs-jquery.quicksearch (to follow upstream naming) Or should I use:

[Pkg-javascript-devel] What JS compressor should I use?

2014-08-17 Thread Thomas Goirand
Hi, To make sure we're using DFSG stuff, I'm compressing the JS scripts myself, instead of using pre-minified JS from upstream. Nothing fancy, I'm sure that's best practice everyone uses here. However, which compressor should I use? I need my packages to build in Wheezy, which is why I currently

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Processing of libjs-jquery.quicksearch_2.0.4-1_amd64.changes

2014-08-17 Thread Debian FTP Masters
libjs-jquery.quicksearch_2.0.4-1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: libjs-jquery.quicksearch_2.0.4-1_all.deb libjs-jquery.quicksearch_2.0.4-1.dsc libjs-jquery.quicksearch_2.0.4.orig.tar.xz libjs-jquery.quicksearch_2.0.4-1.debian.tar.xz Greetings,

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] What JS compressor should I use?

2014-08-17 Thread Jérémy Lal
Le dimanche 17 août 2014 à 15:29 +0800, Thomas Goirand a écrit : Hi, To make sure we're using DFSG stuff, I'm compressing the JS scripts myself, instead of using pre-minified JS from upstream. Nothing fancy, I'm sure that's best practice everyone uses here. However, which compressor

[Pkg-javascript-devel] libjs-jquery.quicksearch_2.0.4-1_amd64.changes is NEW

2014-08-17 Thread Debian FTP Masters
binary:libjs-jquery.quicksearch is NEW. source:libjs-jquery.quicksearch is NEW. Your package has been put into the NEW queue, which requires manual action from the ftpteam to process. The upload was otherwise valid (it had a good OpenPGP signature and file hashes are valid), so please be patient.

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#758310: libuv-dev: Current debian libuv version makes NeoVim compilation fail

2014-08-17 Thread Luca Bruno
Package: libuv-dev Version: 0.10.28-1 Followup-For: Bug #758310 neovim should better check (maybe through pkg-config) which version of libuv it is building against. Debian is currently only shipping the stable branch 0.10, while from your report I seem to understand that neovim is instead

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#754756: libuv: FTBFS on kfreebsd-amd64: test suite issues

2014-08-17 Thread Jérémy Lal
Le dimanche 17 août 2014 à 12:45 +0200, Luca Bruno a écrit : Source: libuv Followup-For: Bug #754756 It looks like there are transient failures in the testsuite, which unfortunately aren't deterministic and I'm unable to reproduce on my VMs and porter-boxes. Checking build-history, the

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#754756: Bug#754756: libuv: FTBFS on kfreebsd-amd64: test suite issues

2014-08-17 Thread Luca BRUNO
Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org ha scritto: I suspect the problem isn't with libuv per se, rather with the tests themselves. Either that, or something more complex in the libc/kernel path. Can you identify a list of the tests that occasionally fail on kfreebsd ? Some culprits in the past

[Pkg-javascript-devel] node-ws_0.4.32-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

2014-08-17 Thread Debian FTP Masters
Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 22:53:13 +0200 Source: node-ws Binary: node-ws Architecture: source amd64 Version: 0.4.32-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian Javascript Maintainers