[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#679665: Bug#680080: Invalidated by dependency: Excuse for mediawiki-extensions

2012-07-10 Thread Thorsten Glaser
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Right now I am waiting for the judgement of the tech-ctte regarding nodejs. See bug#614907. Ah. Luckily, that’s almost resolved. I am concerned about switching compressor - see the discussion at bug#679665. I see. (But yui was used before,

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#680080: Bug#680080: Invalidated by dependency: Excuse for mediawiki-extensions

2012-07-11 Thread Thorsten Glaser
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Because it performs worse, which makes it less used in general, which makes it less tested, which makes it less trustworthy. I thought that was already clarified at bug#679665. Does it make sense now? Thanks, yes. It is helpful that you

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] [Pkg-mediawiki-devel] Bug#687519: mediawiki: Sortable tables are not sortable at all

2012-09-13 Thread Thorsten Glaser
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012, Flavio Bello Fialho wrote: I imagine that mediawiki 1:1.19.1-1 is incompatible with libjs-jquery-tablesorter 6-1, although one depends on the other. I suggest removing the dependency and using the upstream mediawiki file instead of the symlink. That would violate Policy.

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] [Pkg-mediawiki-devel] Bug#687519: mediawiki: Sortable tables are not sortable at all

2012-09-13 Thread Thorsten Glaser
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012, Flavio Bello Fialho wrote: Based on the file header, it seems mediawiki uses a fork of tablesorter or is a modified version of it, specifically for use with mediawiki. I see. In this case, the Policy part I had in mind does not apply, and it’s correct to use the version

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bootstrap(CSS/JS) during package build

2013-11-20 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Hi, I’ve got a FusionForge derivate properly packaged as Debian source package, and would like to keep that. (It’s used inhouse but publicly available.) Now, we are “restyling” it using the “Bootstrap” CSS/JS stuff, whose version 3.1 will use the MIT licence (instead of Apache v2) and thus be

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Bootstrap(CSS/JS) during package build

2013-11-21 Thread Thorsten Glaser
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Jérémy Lal wrote: You can figure out easily what exactly is needed to compile bootstrap in the devDependencies field of: https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/blob/master/package.json Hm, okay. I’m not familiar with all those things, which is why I thought to ask the

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#757322: node-abbrev: absolutely ridiculous package Description

2014-08-07 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Package: node-abbrev Version: 1.0.5-1 Severity: important I was just wondering about the ITPs on d-devel, and whether those packages should not be called nodejs-* instead of node-*, and was seeing this package in the list first. Both its short description and its long description are utterly

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Javascript trigger design

2014-11-28 Thread Thorsten Glaser
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Thomas Goirand wrote: It's been a long time I've been thinking about it, and I believe that the only way to do this, would be to use triggers. Though I have never Look at libjs-protoaculous which combines prototype and scriptaculous into one (possibly minified) js file. In

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Javascript trigger design

2014-12-01 Thread Thorsten Glaser
On Sat, 29 Nov 2014, Thomas Goirand wrote: 2/ in debian/openstack-dashboard.postinst, implement something like: if [ $1 = triggered ] ; then /usr/share/openstack-dashboard/manage.py compress --force fi Is it *that* simple? No, triggers unfortunately are not that simple: if you

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Javascript trigger design

2014-12-01 Thread Thorsten Glaser
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Just looking at the package name that seems not an ideal aproach: Should we then make packages for each combination of libraries to be merged together, or am I missing a more clever logic? Or do you perhaps point No, protoaculous is a special

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#826890: nodejs: not Multi-Arch: foreign

2016-06-09 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Package: nodejs Version: 4.4.3~dfsg-1 Severity: normal On a mixed-architecture system (such as x32 and i386), nodejs can be installed from i386 even when the main architecture is x32. However, due to a missing annotation as Multi-Arch: foreign, rdeps like node-uglify cannot be installed. Please

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#826890: Bug#826890: nodejs: not Multi-Arch: foreign

2016-06-09 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Jonas Smedegaard dixit: >Uhm, wouldn't it make more sense to instead file bugreports against >stuff like node-iglify, to get _more_ of Debian multiarch'ified? node-uglify is arch:all, therefore there’s nothing to be done for this package. I even edited /var/lib/dpkg/status with sudo, to add

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#826890: nodejs: not Multi-Arch: foreign

2016-06-20 Thread Thorsten Glaser
On Sun, 19 Jun 2016, Jérémy Lal wrote: > After further reading, i think (but i'm still quite confused about > multiarch) (who isn’t…) > there might be some complication with the fact node c++ addons are > linked against the binary /usr/bin/nodejs. > > (This situation will improve with the

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#857809: node-uglify: --version errors out

2017-03-15 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Package: node-uglify Version: 2.4.15-1 Severity: important This is in a clean jessie chroot (cowbuilder): (pbuild17583)root@tglase:/# uglifyjs --version module.js:340 throw err; ^ Error: Cannot find module '../package.json' at Function.Module._resolveFilename

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#857809: closed by Jonas Smedegaard <jo...@jones.dk> (reply to 857...@bugs.debian.org) (Re: Bug#857809: node-uglify: --version errors out)

2017-03-15 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Debian Bug Tracking System dixit: >This issue was however already reported as bug#784439. Ah, indeed. It still affects stable, however. Given that it looks like a one-line fix it might be considered? Thanks, //mirabilos -- exceptions: a truly awful implementation of quite a nice idea. just

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#847643: node-uglify: neither manpage nor --help output useful

2017-07-06 Thread Thorsten Glaser
retitle 847643 node-uglify: neither manpage nor --help output useful # Policy 12.1 severity 847643 serious found 847643 2.8.29-1 thanks I think this should be addressed ASAP: tglase@tglase:~ $ dpkg -l node-uglify Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold |

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

2017-08-29 Thread Thorsten Glaser
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > I'm quite convinced that large parts of the Node.js ecosystem will cope well > without any /usr/bin/nodejs available in stretch. > > So I'm not convinced it's really worth the trouble to keep it around for > another stable release; I'd

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

2017-08-31 Thread Thorsten Glaser
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Jérémy Lal wrote: > How about printing a "nice" warning explaining it would be a good idea to > move to /usr/bin/node ? That will break scripts that do: x=$(nodejs somescript) Or even ./somescript when that has a #!/usr/bin/env nodejs shebang. > Then in next next release

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#754462: Bug#754462: Bug#862051: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

2017-08-31 Thread Thorsten Glaser
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Julien Puydt wrote: > May I suggest to have /usr/bin/nodejs print a nice deprecation warning > to use /usr/bin/node, and just *never* remove it? On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > Le jeudi, 31 août 2017, 13.52:00 h CEST Jérémy Lal a écrit : > > How about

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#754462: nodejs (6.11.2~dfsg-1) experimental; urgency=medium

2017-08-29 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Hi, > * Restore /usr/bin/node following CTTE #862051 > Let's try to drop /usr/bin/nodejs before buster. > Replaces and Conflicts nodejs-legacy. > Closes: #754462. please do NOT completely replace an ABI between releases. Leave /usr/bin/nodejs there for at least one more release.

[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#884362: node-uglify: --version output format changed

2017-12-14 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Package: node-uglify Version: 2.8.29-3 Severity: minor tglase@tglase-nb:~ $ uglifyjs --version 2.8.29 This is after an upgrade. Before, it output: uglify-js 2.8.29 There was apparently no change to the node-uglify package itself, only to some *other* nodejs packages.