On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky <[email protected]> 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. _______________________________________________ nodejs mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/nodejs
