[Pkg-javascript-devel] node-katex_0.10.2+dfsg-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Scott Kitterman (2020-06-18 23:44:43)
> On Thursday, June 18, 2020 4:57:52 PM EDT Pirate Praveen wrote:
> > On 2020, ജൂൺ 19 1:40:09 AM IST, Bastian Blank <ftpmaster at ftp-master.debian.org> wrote:
> > >The introduces an unnecessary split into katex and libjs-katex.
> > 
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=934948#54
> > 
> > * User-facing executable programs associated with a library should usually
> > be packaged in a non-library binary package whose name reflects the program
> > (for example tappy, flatpak, parted) or collection of related programs (for
> > example kmod, libsecret-tools, libglib2.0-bin), rather than being bundled
> > in the same binary package as the runtime library.
> > 
> > Do you disagree with recommendation of ctte or you don't think it does not
> > apply here?
> 
> You did read the rest of that, right?

Hi Scott and Bastian and others in the ftpmaster team,

I read above quote as an attempt at saying "hmm, I don't see the split 
as necessary, and to me it feels like the tech-ctte team agrees that 
_generally_ such split is sensible.

Could you please elaborate a bit on your opinion that the introduced 
split into katex and libjs-katex is unnecessary?

Kind regards,

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/attachments/20200621/6d86e257/attachment-0001.sig>