Re: Are people ok if I update uglify-js to 3.x ?
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 8:51 AM Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:37 AM Troy Dawson <tdawson(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> There are several nodejs packages that do not build in rawhide with
> the current build of uglify-js. It is very likely it's because the
> nodejs version is so new that something broke.
> I would like to update the version of uglify-js to version 3.10.4 (the
> latest version).
> It does have some changes for how it does mapping, more options and
> different syntax. But, it works, unlike what we currently have.
>
> I was going to ask the owners, but it looks like the nodejs-sig has
> been taking care of it for a while, so I'm asking here.
>
> Troy
Hi Troy,
I think I'm technically the point-of-contact. From my point of view,
I'd go ahead and do it.
There are a handful of node packages that have a runtime dependency on
uglify-js 2.x but I suspect they're already broken anyway with
dependency issues-- or if they aren't yet they will be for other
reasons. I think uglify-js 3.x also has the advantage that it has no
required npm dependencies, unlike the older versions.
Ben Rosser
Thanks Ben,
Having it self contained (no dependencies) is also a plus.
I'm building it just in Rawhide right now, even though the failing
packages I'm looking at are for F33.
If nobody objects by the middle of next week, I'll build it on F33 as
well, so those packages can be fixed.
(Currently I'm looking at nodejs-backbone and nodejs-underscore)
Troy