Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> (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 + ugifyjs + revert inferior fix for bug#679665 To me, that looks perfectly suited for wheezy-backports once it's available (possibly along with other nodejs libraries). As we said repeatedly, we've been avoiding adding new packages to wheezy for a while now. The whole node vs. nodejs is not an excuse, let alone a reason, to diverge from the current practice, IMO. Mraw, KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature