F23 Self Contained Change: io.js Technology Preview
sgallagh at redhat.com
Wed Jul 1 19:41:22 UTC 2015
On Wed, 2015-06-24 at 13:53 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:56 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth
> <tchollingsworth at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:21 AM, Peter Robinson <
> > pbrobinson at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Why are we even bothering with this when io.js is merging back
> > > into
> > > node.js so from what I can see is that io.js won't really be
> > > around
> > > for much longer
> > That's exactly why we're bothering with it. Everything in it will
> > be
> > in the nodejs package someday. Why not get ready now?
> For the benefit of those not reading the other thread, I might add
> that io.js also adds support for the PowerPC architecture. That will
> make it the only provider of /usr/bin/node on that platform.
So this was discussed at today's FESCo meeting. Basically, we're not
sure that it makes sense to have both interpreters in the distribution,
particularly since they are merging back together in the future.
Would you be willing to consider just packaging io.js *as* node.js in
Fedora 23? Among other things, this would avoid the need to go through
additional package reviews, rebuild nodejs-* packages to work with
My limited understanding of io.js is that it is essentially a superset
of node.js functionality, so it seems like just moving to this instead
of node.js 0.12.0 would make sense.
Otherwise, will this Change require building NPM packages for iojs
-<module> rather than (or in addition to) nodejs-module? Can this be
avoided by running them with an alternatives-provided /usr/bin/node?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the devel