Quoting Jerome Charaoui (2014-01-31 16:12:44) > Le 2014-01-31 06:36, Daniel James a écrit : >> Thanks for the reply. I have checked the list above, and only galette >> depends on a specific version of libjs-jquery-cookie, in this case >> (>= 8). >> >> I guess the current version numbering was chosen because the source >> package jquery-goodies contains many different libraries, with a >> variety of upstream version numbers. Would it be a lot more work to >> create a source package for each of the 23 binary packages? > > Well, yes, it would be a lot of work. And I'm quite certain the > official javascript packaging team would disagree to split > jquery-goodies.
We do not as a team mandate bundling of jQuery addons. I have no problem with splitting out addons as needed. > But, I think switching to upstream numbering is still possible. by > using an epoch number. The new version number for libjs-jquery-cookie > would be 1:1.4.0 (epoch 1) which would be more recent than 8-2 (epoch > 0). Generating a binary package with a different version number than > the source package is definitely possible. Whoa - either the package version is relevant or it isn't. Sounds to me that a bundle package cannot have a version that indicates versions of each of the bundled parts, and it is *not* sensible to throw an epoch to try please just one piece of the bundle. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
