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
>>> 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
>> 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
> 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.