-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 05/02/2013 01:40 AM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
<sochotnicky(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Quoting T.C. Hollingsworth (2013-04-27 00:03:21)
>> Yeah, this seems like a good idea. I wonder if npm2rpm and
>> stuff like that should live in this package, or in it's own?
>
> Advantage of having single project is that you won't have to
> approve commit access several times :-) In Java we create single
> source tarball, but then spec file splits this into several
> smaller binary RPMs.
True. We'd definitely want to split the binary RPMs if we did
this because npm2rpm will be much more dep heavy (it needs npm
itself as well as a templating library).
Please remember to consider the bootstrapping problem in the event of
future mass-rebuilds. If the nodejs package starts build-depending on
the npm package, that's a circular dependency that becomes very
difficult to maintain. (I've seen how they have to do it in GCC, and
it's not pretty).
I'd suggest that we might want to pull out the macro and npm2rpm stuff
as a separate SRPM, mainly just to avoid this problem. So I'm all for
the 'nodejs-packaging' project to be all-encompassing here.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlGCUxQACgkQeiVVYja6o6PzqwCfURLnl4F0BnfLkYcaY7hPt8aJ
Qd4AnjCHo7ywIniAsvwmeFFDqh0kScqU
=wL7h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----