On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 1:07 PM Ben Rosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 12:56 PM Troy Dawson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 8:47 AM Stephen Gallagher <[email protected]> 
> > wrote:
...
> > > Frankly, I think we should probably get out of the business of
> > > shipping library NPMs entirely. Upstream's stance on global vs. local
> > > NPM installations is this [1]:
> > >
> > > """
> > > Just like how global variables are kind of gross, but also necessary
> > > in some cases, global packages are important, but best avoided if not
> > > needed.
> > >
> > > In general, the rule of thumb is:
> > >
> > > * If you’re installing something that you want to use in your program,
> > > using require('whatever'), then install it locally, at the root of
> > > your project.
> > > * If you’re installing something that you want to use in your shell,
> > > on the command line or something, install it globally, so that its
> > > binaries end up in your PATH environment variable.
> > > """
> > >
> > > So, as a shorthand, I think Fedora should only package:
> > >
> > > 1) The interpreter, development headers/libraries, and the assorted
> > > tools to manage project-level installations (NPM, yarn, etc.).
> > > 2) Packages that provide binaries that users would want to use in their 
> > > shell.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure when bundling their dependencies would be impossible. Can
> > > you provide an example? The whole ecosystem is designed around
> > > bundling as the preferred approach.
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] https://nodejs.org/en/blog/npm/npm-1-0-global-vs-local-installation/
> >
> > I can't provide an example of when bundling would be impossible.  I
> > just assumed there would be one.
> > Part of me thinks this will be alot of work, and another part of me
> > thinks it will be less work than what I was proposing above.
> >
> > I like your proposal over mine.  It's more clear, and clean.  And
> > after the initial set of work, the packaging workload drops.
> >
> > Does anyone have any major objections before I look at how to do a
> > Fedora change proposal?
> >
> > Troy
> >
>
> At least for the short term, I'd suggest adding (3): compiled/binary
> nodejs modules; there aren't very many of these in the ecosystem
> anyway, as I understand it (there certainly aren't very many in
> Fedora) so I don't think it would be too much work to package them
> separately.
>
> Otherwise, this sounds good to me!
>

Sounds like a reasonable approach. +1
_______________________________________________
nodejs mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]

Reply via email to