Package: python-coverage
Severity: minor
Version: 3.7+dfsg.1-1

I agree. Let's track the issue on this new bug report.

Both of the options sound good, and I'd like to think a bit to see if there
are others before choosing.

The reasoning for having the ECMAScript libraries as Recommends is:

* The HTML report is not required for the primary function of the package.
  This package is useful without ever using the HTML report feature.
  Hence, it is not sufficiently necessary to warrant “Depends”.

* The HTML report is an important feature that is advertised in the
  documentation, and should be enabled by default. Hence, it should be
  installed by default unless the sysadmin decides to remove it; it should
  be no lower than “Recommends”.

There's another way through this, though: I could see a change to the HTML
report feature such that it is enabled by default, but works *without*
ECMAScript. This would require changing the expectations of the HTML
output, and preferably working with upstream to de-couple the HTML from the
need for ECMAScript libraries.

If the ECMAScript libraries merely enhanced the HTML report, instead of
being required for that feature, I could then condone those libraries being
demoted to “Suggests” dependencies for this package.