Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690728 --- Comment #52 from James Laska <jlaska@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-08-11 08:34:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #51) > Ah, thank you James for that information. > Are javascript frameworks mentioned there somewhere? You know, I was wondering that too. I don't see them explicitly mentioned, and it's hard to determine where the line is between a collection of .js files (libraries) and a framework. We can certainly raise this topic on packaging@ for clarification. Some initial poking I did gave me the same impression you note later on ... that this is just the *current* policy, and it's subject to change. > So then it sounds like the separate packaging I requested > is not strictly necessary? Anyway I glad that tinymce > was packaged up. > > If Fedora later changes the bundling policy for website javascript, > I think it may be hard work to clean up... Agreed! If js frameworks are okay to bundle for now, I think it would still be wise to at least start package reviews for them ... but not require their completion for this review? Thoughts/comments/concerns? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review