-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/02/2013 01:40 AM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: > 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). >
Please remember to consider the bootstrapping problem in the event of future mass-rebuilds. If the nodejs package starts build-depending on the npm package, that's a circular dependency that becomes very difficult to maintain. (I've seen how they have to do it in GCC, and it's not pretty). I'd suggest that we might want to pull out the macro and npm2rpm stuff as a separate SRPM, mainly just to avoid this problem. So I'm all for the 'nodejs-packaging' project to be all-encompassing here. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlGCUxQACgkQeiVVYja6o6PzqwCfURLnl4F0BnfLkYcaY7hPt8aJ Qd4AnjCHo7ywIniAsvwmeFFDqh0kScqU =wL7h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ nodejs mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/nodejs
