On 07/11/2012 20:29, Sébastien Villemot wrote: > Jérémy Lal <kapo...@melix.org> writes: > >> 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 >>> dependencies. >>> >>> I am therefore considering the possibility of having a libuv package in >>> Debian. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Regards, >> >> 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 >> soname versioning. >> * 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...? > > Thanks for your answer. > > Actually I realized that julia's upstream uses a modified version of > libuv. Given this and also the fact that the libuv API is not yet > stabilized, I will for now use an embedded libuv inside the julia > package. > > But having a separate libuv package clearly remains a goal, once its API > is stabilized (maybe by nodejs 1.0). Let's keep in touch.
Update : libuv got rid of libev - that fixes the annoyance of having to backport it to unpatched libev. Jérémy. _______________________________________________ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel