On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 02:40:29 -0400 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> How small is too small is a judgement call may be the FTP team member
> reviewing the package. Different people will not always make the same
> judgement.
This is a straw man argument here. Neither the comment on node-autoprefixer nor
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 02:40:29 -0400 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Unless someone can figure out an actual resolvable controversy, I don't seen
> any point in bothering other FTP team members with this. To the extent
> anything is being requested, it seems like it's infeasible (write down exact
> rule
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:55:11 +0100 Simon McVittie wrote:
> That doesn't answer my question.
>
> I looked at this executable again and it seems as though its purpose is
> to query metadata about the autoprefixer nodejs library, analogous to
> the -config programs sometimes found in -dev packages (
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 22:59:50 +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> On 2019, ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 21 7:06:34 PM IST, Simon McVittie wrote:
> >* As far as I can tell, the command-line executable
> >`.../bin/autoprefixer`
> > is not in the PATH. I don't know whether it is run automatically in
> > some other way, a
Looking back at the original mail, it seems like the main complaint is that
the two packages were treated differently. The easiest resolution to that
problem is to go ahead and remove node-autoprefixer. That'll solve the
inconsistency.
How small is too small is a judgement call may be the FTP
Hi, Simon. Thanks for the writeup which makes things much more
comprehensible.
Simon McVittie writes ("Bug#934948: Unnecessary dependencies vs multiple binary
packages"):
> * All correctly-packaged Ruby libraries have a dependency on the Ruby
> interpreter, regardless of w
On 2019, ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 21 7:06:34 PM IST, Simon McVittie wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 11:20:22 +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>> I'd like to bring to your notice a disagreement with ftp masters
>about adding
>> multiple binary packages when the same source package has code
>targeting
>> multiple env
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 11:20:22 +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> I'd like to bring to your notice a disagreement with ftp masters about adding
> multiple binary packages when the same source package has code targeting
> multiple environments.
While attempting to construct a summary of the situation
Package: tech-ctte
Hi members of CTTE,
I'd like to bring to your notice a disagreement with ftp masters about adding
multiple binary packages when the same source package has code targeting
multiple environments. I have been told already that CTTE cannot overrule an
ftp master decision, so I'm
9 matches
Mail list logo
