https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967805
Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |code(a)musicinmybrain.net
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net> ---
I see two high-level issues here.
First, this primarily provides the web-ext tool, so per
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Node.js/#_namin...
this should be called web-ext rather than nodejs-web-ext. This is easily
remedied by changing the name and opening a new review request.
The second problem is more serious: the BR on coffee-script. That package is
orphaned (
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/coffee-script) and at risk of
retirement. You could adopt it yourself, and I even looked at doing so when it
was first orphaned.
The problem is that CoffeeScript is self-hosting—it is written in
CoffeeScript—so the existing RPM uses the pre-compiled JavaScript
implementation in the source tarball to re-compile CoffeeScript. This kind of
bootstrapping is not generally permissible when it uses a pre-compiled binary,
requiring explicit approval from FPC, and I don’t see why bootstrapping from
pre-compiled JavaScript would be any different. As far as I can tell, no
exception was ever requested or obtained for coffee-script. So—in my
opinion—anyone who adopts the coffee-script package should be prepared to go to
the FPC, explain the situation, and try to get an exception. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bootstrapping and
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_general_excep....
It seems like it doesn’t make sense to package this unless the situation with
coffee-script is resolved, since web-ext would very quickly be FTI.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component