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 you
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
On 8 May 2014 16:00, Jonas Smedegaard 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).
>
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 23:19:52 +0200
Source: should.js
Binary: node-should
Architecture: source all
Version: 3.3.1+dfsg-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Javascript Maintainers
Changed-By: Leo Iannac
FYI: The status of the node-async source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 0.2.5-1
Current version: 0.8.0-1
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a day you will rece
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'.
T
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.. t
