-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/24/2015 08:07 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 11/24/2015 08:06 AM, Jared K. Smith wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Zuzana Svetlikova >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> The problem now is, that we need that module ASAP. I have no >> problem with packaging jison, but it would have to be reviewed >> and built today/tomorrow and it's at least 7 modules. > > > >> I'm happy to do package reviews today, or even help package the >> modules themselves. Just send me a message on IRC (my nick is >> "jsmith"), and I'd be happy to help. I'd rather volunteer to do >> the work and get things done quickly rather than try to bypass >> the process. > >> Do you have a list of the 7 modules that need to be >> packaged/reviewed? > > > For what it's worth, I'm trying to get a statement from FPC on > whether this is generally acceptable to do. But yeah, if someone > wants to fast-track the jison packaging process, that would be the > ideal case, I think.
OK, I spoke with Jason Tibbitts from FPC today. His interpretation is that we should treat jison pretty much exactly as we do bison: in other words, it's preferred that we re-generate it (and should continue to work towards that), but this is NOT a blocker for this package. (But once we finish the jison packaging, it's in our best interest to rebuild this package using our copy of jison to regenerate the code). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlZUsw0ACgkQeiVVYja6o6Ni3wCfRVMrB6iwNnv1ZuCBS1PodYMl hr8Anj8Jx+rKkTh61o3G6JxlWq7iAxLk =vAWf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ nodejs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[email protected]
