On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 22:27:34 +0200, Paul Gevers said:
> Hi Hubert, Thanks for writing this down.
> On 19-09-17 17:58, Hubert Chathi wrote:
>> https://wiki.debian.org/HubertChathi/JavaScriptPolicy
>>
>> Please let me know what you all think of it, and suggest
>>
Hi Hubert,
Thanks for writing this down.
On 19-09-17 17:58, Hubert Chathi wrote:
> https://wiki.debian.org/HubertChathi/JavaScriptPolicy
>
> Please let me know what you all think of it, and suggest
> improvements/fixes/etc.
I was wondering how you envision the following: "The source package
On 08/18/2017 08:53 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Ross Gammon (2017-08-18 19:54:50)
>> On 08/18/2017 06:09 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> Quoting Ross Gammon (2017-08-18 16:47:10)
On 08/18/2017 04:50 AM, Hubert Chathi wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 09:27:49 +0200, Ross Gammon
On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 12:32:39 +0200, Mathias Behrle <mbeh...@debian.org> said:
> * Hubert Chathi: " [Pkg-javascript-devel] parallel installation" (Mon,
> 14 Aug 2017 14:38:34 -0400):
> I appreciate very much the initiative to find a common procedure for
> making d
* Hubert Chathi: " [Pkg-javascript-devel] parallel installation" (Mon, 14 Aug
2017 14:38:34 -0400):
I appreciate very much the initiative to find a common procedure for making
different versions of JS libs available while still being compliant to policy.
The very special use c
Quoting Ross Gammon (2017-08-18 19:54:50)
> On 08/18/2017 06:09 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Quoting Ross Gammon (2017-08-18 16:47:10)
> >> On 08/18/2017 04:50 AM, Hubert Chathi wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 09:27:49 +0200, Ross Gammon
> >>> said:
> >>>
>
On 08/18/2017 06:09 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Ross Gammon (2017-08-18 16:47:10)
>> On 08/18/2017 04:50 AM, Hubert Chathi wrote:
>>> [meant to reply to the list, so sending again]
>>>
>>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 09:27:49 +0200, Ross Gammon
>>> said:
>>>
Quoting Ross Gammon (2017-08-18 16:47:10)
> On 08/18/2017 04:50 AM, Hubert Chathi wrote:
> > [meant to reply to the list, so sending again]
> >
> > On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 09:27:49 +0200, Ross Gammon
> > said:
> >
> >> For node-* stuff however, upstream handle this by
On 08/18/2017 04:50 AM, Hubert Chathi wrote:
> [meant to reply to the list, so sending again]
>
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 09:27:49 +0200, Ross Gammon
> said:
>
>> For node-* stuff however, upstream handle this by bundling a
>> particular version of a module in
Quoting Paul Gevers (2017-08-15 21:20:49)
> On 14-08-17 20:38, Hubert Chathi wrote:
> > At the BoF at DebConf, we were talking about parallel installation
> > of different versions of JS libraries. In order to do parallel
> > installation, we'd need differently named packages for different
> >
[meant to reply to the list, so sending again]
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 09:27:49 +0200, Ross Gammon
said:
> For node-* stuff however, upstream handle this by bundling a
> particular version of a module in node_modules. If it is "really
> difficult" to patch a node
Hi,
On 08/15/2017 09:20 PM, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 14-08-17 20:38, Hubert Chathi wrote:
>> At the BoF at DebConf, we were talking about parallel installation of
>> different versions of JS libraries. In order to do parallel
>> installation, we'd need differently named packages for
Hi,
On 14-08-17 20:38, Hubert Chathi wrote:
> At the BoF at DebConf, we were talking about parallel installation of
> different versions of JS libraries. In order to do parallel
> installation, we'd need differently named packages for different
> versions, and it seems like the obvious way to do
At the BoF at DebConf, we were talking about parallel installation of
different versions of JS libraries. In order to do parallel
installation, we'd need differently named packages for different
versions, and it seems like the obvious way to do that is to have
packages called something like
14 matches
Mail list logo