Sure, it doesn't seem upstream is actively developing it anymore. On Sep 2, 2012 1:39 AM, "David Prévot" <taf...@debian.org> wrote:
> Control: found -1 0.3.1-1 > > Hi, > > On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 08:51:40PM +0100, Johan Euphrosine wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Enrico Zini <enr...@enricozini.org> > wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > thank you for maintaining jscoverage. > > > > > > jscoverage 0.3.1-1 is currently in squeeze and sid and has RC bugs open > > > against it. > > > > > > Considering that the package has a very small number of users, that > > > we're supposed to release fairly soon, and that this issue looks not > > > that easy to solve, it may be a good idea to just remove > > > jscoverage from testing and deal with this comfortably in unstable. > > > > > > Would it make sense for you? > > > > Sure, > > > > The only RC bugs known to me is #579227, > > > > Last time I pinged upstream about it, he said that it would require a > > rewrite of some key part of jscoverage in order to use the new parser > > API in spidermonkey and remove the embedded copy. > > > > I think it is a good idea to remove jscoverage from testing if it > > blocks squeeze release, and I will keep updating the unstable package > > when upstream publish a new major version. > > It seems jscoverage 0.3.1-1 currently in testing (and Squeeze) also > shipped an embedded code copy of libmozjs, so it may be sensible to > actually remove it from testing as suggested two years ago, and maybe > from Squeeze too. > > Regards > > David > > >
