On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 4:50 AM, Stephen Gallagher <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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'm just talking about Requires: npm.  We definitely wouldn't need
BuildRequires on it (the only way that would ever be possible is for
%check, but there's no network in koji so we couldn't use it for any
tests there anyway).  So, this shouldn't be a problem?

> 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.

-T.C.
_______________________________________________
nodejs mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/nodejs

Reply via email to