Il 31/01/19 12:52, Jonas Smedegaard ha scritto:
> ...
> I suggest this way forward:
>
> 1) Release node-js-beautify to unstable with no executable at all
> 2) Release node-js-beautify to experimental adding python package
> 3) Release node-js-beautify to unstable when 1) is in testing
>
> I am
Quoting Sébastien Delafond (2019-01-31 12:25:05)
> On Jan/31, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > The underlying issue is that the "js" in python-jsbeautifier stands
> > for JavaScript, and python-jsbeautifier fail to properly expose the
> > JavaScript part of the project as a shared library!
> >
> > The
On Jan/31, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> The underlying issue is that the "js" in python-jsbeautifier stands
> for JavaScript, and python-jsbeautifier fail to properly expose the
> JavaScript part of the project as a shared library!
>
> The straightforward solution is for python-jsbeautifier to also b
Quoting Sébastien Delafond (2019-01-31 09:08:38)
> To me the straightforward solution here is not dpkg-alternative, but
> what Ivo recommended, since it only involves modifying *one* package.
The underlying issue is that the "js" in python-jsbeautifier stands for
JavaScript, and python-jsbeautifi
Le jeu. 31 janv. 2019 à 09:12, Sébastien Delafond a écrit :
> To me the straightforward solution here is not dpkg-alternative, but
> what Ivo recommended, since it only involves modifying *one* package.
>
Okay, thank you for your quick reply.
To me two executables with the same name and the same
To me the straightforward solution here is not dpkg-alternative, but
what Ivo recommended, since it only involves modifying *one* package.
Cheers,
--
Seb
6 matches
Mail list logo
