Web lists-archives.com

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

Pirate Praveen writes ("Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED"):
> So in this specific case, I will add these files to libjs-three. I think
> ftp masters don't want to distinguish between browser environment and
> node environment, but just have one package. See
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=837467#22 for a
> previous instance of this demand. I think arbitrarily reducing the
> number of binary packages is more important than following JavaScript
> team policy https://wiki.debian.org/Javascript/Policy which says "should
> generate a node-foo binary package if the script is usable also for Nodejs".
> I also propose we abandon the current Javascript team policy because it
> is not supposed to be followed. Just have one binary package for every
> source package irrespective of it is useful for node or browser.

This is the first I'd heard of this being a policy question.  How
about you discuss the team policy and the reasons behind it on
d-policy CC the javascript list.  If you wish to retain the policy,
but ftpmaster disagree with it, you can escalate the policy question
to the TC.

The TC are empowered to "Decide on any matter of technical policy".
If the TC endorse your policy then I don't doubt that ftpmaster will
stop rejecting packages for complying with it.


Ian Jackson <ijackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.