On 31/10/2012 21:31, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> [Please CC me, I’m not subscribed to the list]
> Dear node.js maintainers,
> My prospective package julia (ITP: #691912) has libuv among its
> I am therefore considering the possibility of having a libuv package in
> If I understand correctly, libuv is a subproject of node.js, and the
> current node.js binary is (statically) linked against it.
> I am therefore wondering if you would be willing to create a libuv-dev
> package out of the current nodejs source package. Of course, I would be
> willing to submit a patch against node.js to achieve this.
> An alternative would be to create an independent libuv source package
> that I would (co-)maintain (and of course you would be more than welcome
> as co-maintainers).
> The last solution would be the statu quo: having both node.js and julia
> embed their own copy of libuv. I think this is not a desirable solution,
> for obvious reasons.
> Another issue is whether a shared library can be produced. Upstream
> seems to provide only a static binary, and I don't know if they commit
> to API/ABI tracking and versioning. In the worst case, a static only
> library is still useful (especially in combination with the new
> Built-Using field introduced in Policy 3.9.4).
> I look forward to hear your thoughts.
Good idea. Some thoughts :
* as you say and as i have observed too, upstream is more keen on
using embedded libs. I hope i'm wrong, but my guess is upstream won't
be friendly with us, debian maintainers.
* libuv releases match nodejs releases (same versions)
* API is not stable. Good news is that it's C - we have tools to manage
* julia, nodejs and libuv are young and they will be hard to follow...
at least until nodejs reaches 1.0 (upstream seems to be really trying
to stabilize everything now).
* (not sure) i think latest libuv relies on unreleased fixes to libev.
Maybe we can start the work on packaging libuv, and depend on it when
it doesn't require heavy patching work and updates every month...?