Re: Node.js Mailing List (& more!)
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
<sochotnicky(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Quoting T.C. Hollingsworth (2013-04-27 00:03:21)
> Yeah, this seems like a good idea. I wonder if npm2rpm and stuff like
> that should live in this package, or in it's own?
Advantage of having single project is that you won't have to approve commit
access several times :-) In Java we create single source tarball, but then
spec file splits this into several smaller binary RPMs.
True. We'd definitely want to split the binary RPMs if we did this
because npm2rpm will be much more dep heavy (it needs npm itself as
well as a templating library).
I guess it depends on how much code sharing you envision could happen
there.
None really. The current version uses the requires generator for
nodejs to write BuildRequires based on package.json devDependencies,
but I'm going to rip that out because the specific versioned
dependencies that results in are really overkill for BuildRequires in
Fedora packages.
> I'm not sure this is necessary in node's case. The only
thing RPM
> builds need that normal node use doesn't require is the RPM macros,
> which will end up in their own package eventually anyway.
Right, in Java those macros eventually started using Python/Perl and pulled in a
few more dependencies. Plus RPM builds in Maven differ quite a lot
dependency-wise from non-RPM so situation is indeed different. Something to keep
in mind for the future in case something changes.
Well we use Python, but I purposely stuck to the standard library
(well actually there wasn't really any reason not to ;-) and there
isn't a practical Fedora installation without a Python interpreter
thanks to yum and others, so I don't think that's a big deal.
Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and file a ticket for a nodejs-packaging
fedorahosted project to get the ball rolling on this.
-T.C.