Bug#684044: unblock: nodejs/0.6.19~dfsg1-4

2012-08-22 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Raphael Hertzog (20/08/2012): > Of course to avoid being overwhelmed with new packages (which could > create supplementary workloads later in the freeze), you should not > allow them by default. But when a maintainer does the effort to argue > for its inclusion, he's likely also going to do the ef

Bug#684044: unblock: nodejs/0.6.19~dfsg1-4

2012-08-20 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > The current practice is not to add packages which aren't already in > wheezy to the release. Unblocking nodejs involves adding a package > which isn't already in wheezy to the release. I'm not sure how > unblocking it would therefore be anything other

Bug#684044: unblock: nodejs/0.6.19~dfsg1-4

2012-08-20 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On 20.08.2012 08:40, Thomas Goirand wrote: As we said repeatedly, we've been avoiding adding new packages to wheezy for a while now. I think that the point that Jonas is trying to make is that NodeJS isn't new, it's only new to wheezy, and only because of the name conflict. "new to wheezy"

Bug#684044: unblock: nodejs/0.6.19~dfsg1-4

2012-08-20 Thread Thomas Goirand
Hi, > As we said repeatedly, we've been avoiding adding new packages > to wheezy for a while now. I think that the point that Jonas is trying to make is that NodeJS isn't new, it's only new to wheezy, and only because of the name conflict. > The whole node vs. nodejs is not an excuse, let alone

Bug#684044: unblock: nodejs/0.6.19~dfsg1-4

2012-08-07 Thread Steven Chamberlain
On 06/08/12 15:12, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On 06.08.2012 14:20, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> Attached is a debdiff of changes made since 0.6.19~dfsg1-2 - the version >> that would've entered testing had it not been held back by bugs #611698 >> and #681360. > > None of the code has ever been in test

Bug#684044: unblock: nodejs/0.6.19~dfsg1-4

2012-08-06 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Jonas Smedegaard (06/08/2012): > Thanks for looking at this so swiftly. > > I understand the worry of a slippery slope of "opening the gates to > everything Nodejs". I do find it sensible, however, to consider e.g. > one of these subsets: > > 1) nodejs > 2) nodejs + uglifyjs > 3) nodejs +

Bug#684044: unblock: nodejs/0.6.19~dfsg1-4

2012-08-06 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
On 12-08-06 at 03:12pm, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On 06.08.2012 14:20, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >Please unblock package nodejs > > > >We have now adjusted nodejs as ruled by tech-ctte at > > > >, > >and consider it ready for inc

Bug#684044: unblock: nodejs/0.6.19~dfsg1-4

2012-08-06 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On 06.08.2012 14:20, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Please unblock package nodejs We have now adjusted nodejs as ruled by tech-ctte at , and consider it ready for inclusion in Wheezy. I'm afraid that, at least imo, more than a mon

Bug#684044: unblock: nodejs/0.6.19~dfsg1-4

2012-08-06 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package nodejs We have now adjusted nodejs as ruled by tech-ctte at , and consider it ready for inclusio