Le vendredi 27 septembre 2024, 16:18:45 UTC Julian Gilbey a écrit : > On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 11:55:16AM -0400, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote: > > On 2024-09-25 15:20, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > > Package: lintian > > > Version: 2.118.2 > > > Severity: normal > > > > > > With the node-async 3.2.6+dfsg-* upload, libjs-async has disappeared > > > from unstable, and once it migrates to testing, it will be gone from > > > testing too. Please can this lintian warning be updated to refer to > > > node-async instead of libjs-async (and node-async itself should > > > presumably have an override in lintian for this warning). > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Julian > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Thanks for opening this bug. I'm not sure recommending people use node-async > > is the right thing to do? > > > > libjs-async provided /usr/share/javascript/async/async.js and > > /usr/share/javascript/async/async.min.js, which is not provided by > > node-async itself. > > > > I'm not very familiar with the JS ecosystem, but it seems a package > > maintainer that would want to replace an embedded copy of async.js thus > > couldn't use the new package. > > > > Maybe we could just drop the recommendation altogether? > > > > Happy to make the change you propose if I'm wrong though. > > > > Cheers, > > Hi Louis-Philippe, > > Good question! Presumably people would have hand-modified their code > to include a symlink to the file in /usr/share/javascript; the > equivalent file in node-async is /usr/share/nodejs/async/dist/async.js > which "should" do the same thing, so people "should" just have to > update their link (but no guarantees; I'm also not a JavaScript > expert!).
Whith javascript hat they should update the link and add versioned depends Bastien > > So either drop the recommendation altogether or point to node-async > (perhaps with softer wording than a recommendation?). > > Best wishes, > > Julian > >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
