Source0 for nodejs modules
by Piotr Popieluch
The the Node.js guidelines say about Source0 [1]:
"The canonical method for shipping most node modules is tarballs from
the npm registry"
and
"This method [PP: tarbals from npm] should be preferred to using
checkouts from git or automatically generated tarballs from GitHub."
But I think that in following cases it would be better to use sources
from the upstream project:
1) When the license is not included in NPM but is in upstream project.
o Because we are not supposed to ship the license separate from the
sources.
2) When the tests are not included.
o In this case we need to download the sources from NPM and from
upstream project, which seems redundant and a waste of work.
3) When NPM content is generated and source files are not in NPM.
o This would mean to download sources from NPM and upstream project,
delete the NPM sources in prep and generate the files again.
Are there good reason to enforce the use of NPM sources which I am
missing? What is your opinion?
I would like to suggest to ad those three exceptions to the guidelines.
Piotr
[1]:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Node.js?rd=Node.js/Packagers#Usi...
5 years, 4 months
lodash
by Tom Hughes
I've been putting my mind to trying to figure out the mess of craziness
that is lodash with the aim up updating it... There are basically two
upstream repos I believe:
https://github.com/lodash/lodash-cli - the build tool
https://github.com/lodash - the actual source
Currently have three source packages:
nodejs-lodash-cli - generates nodejs-lodash-cli
nodejs-lodash - generates nodejs-lodash
nodejs-lodash-node - generates many packages
It's very dubious to what extent the sources those packages are using
are the genuine root source though.
The basic story upstream is that the main lodash repo has a build script
that can generate a lodash.js single file build and the lodash tool in
the lodash-cli repo can then generate all sorts of different builds of
lodash from that.
Except that lodash-cli is a node program that does require("lodash") but
the may the lodash npm is build is to use the lodash command line tool
so that's all a bit circular.
My feeling is that we should move to a single source package that uses
both the upstream repos as sources. The strategy would then be something
like this:
cd lodash
node lib/main/build.js [generates dist/lodash.js]
cd ../lodash-cli
mkdir node_modules
ln -s ../../lodash/dist/lodash.js node_modules
lodash modularize modern exports=node -o nodejs-lodash
and then a serious of further lodash commands to generate the different
builds.
It could then spit out a number of different RPMs corresponding to the
many different versions that the lodash project publish to the npm
registry and also some js- versions if we wanted.
My gut feeling is we should all three current source packages and create
a new one just called lodash that can spit out whatever node and
non-node ones we need but we could also repurpose the existing
nodejs-lodash package as the source.
So, what do people think?
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (tom(a)compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
8 years, 4 months
Plans for Node.js
by Zuzana Svetlikova
Are there any actual plans for Node.js stack in fedora?
Are we going to update everything and hope that nothing
breaks (much)? Is there any way of knowing beforehand if
update will break some other packages (because I don't
know of any, so please enlighten me)?
What about updating v8, nodejs and npm? Are we going for
LTS and npm@2 or directly to v5.x and npm@3?
I'm sorry for so many questions, I'd just like to have
some answers so I know on what I should focus.
Thanks
8 years, 4 months
Thoughts on a NodeJS packaging group
by Jared K. Smith
Several of the other SIGs have a packaging group with ACL permissions on
various packages that correspond with their SIG. I think we're to the
point with NodeJS packages that it makes sense to make all of the nodejs-*
packages part of a NodeJS packaging group, and then add the main NodeJS
packagers to said group.
That way, we wouldn't have to request individual ACLs on each of the NodeJS
packages should we want to help keep them up to date.
Thoughts? Concerns?
--
Jared Smith
8 years, 4 months
nan v2
by Tom Hughes
I'm encountering more and more binary modules that need v2.x of nan to
build them, and we currently only have 0.x and 1.x available.
So I've opened a nodejs-nan1 review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284565
Once that is done I will push an update for nodejs-nan to bring it up to
v2.x at the same time as I push the nodejs-nan1 module.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (tom(a)compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
8 years, 5 months
Urgent Review Request
by Tom Hughes
Due a spectacular piece of idiocy on my part I pushed an update to grant
that had a new dependency without actually have that dependency available..
So I have review requests open for that dependency now, and for a
further dependency of that dependency, and if somebody could manage to
review them so I can unbreak rawhide then that would be very much
appreciated.
The reviews are:
1284180 nodejs-grunt-legacy-log-utils
1284181 nodejs-grunt-legacy-log
Thanks,
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (tom(a)compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
8 years, 5 months
