On Wed, 2015-06-24 at 13:53 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:56 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth > <tchollingsworth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:21 AM, Peter Robinson < > > pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Why are we even bothering with this when io.js is merging back > > > into > > > node.js so from what I can see is that io.js won't really be > > > around > > > for much longer > > > > That's exactly why we're bothering with it. Everything in it will > > be > > in the nodejs package someday. Why not get ready now? > > For the benefit of those not reading the other thread, I might add > that io.js also adds support for the PowerPC architecture. That will > make it the only provider of /usr/bin/node on that platform. > So this was discussed at today's FESCo meeting[1]. Basically, we're not sure that it makes sense to have both interpreters in the distribution, particularly since they are merging back together in the future. Would you be willing to consider just packaging io.js *as* node.js in Fedora 23? Among other things, this would avoid the need to go through additional package reviews, rebuild nodejs-* packages to work with io.js, etc. My limited understanding of io.js is that it is essentially a superset of node.js functionality, so it seems like just moving to this instead of node.js 0.12.0 would make sense. Otherwise, will this Change require building NPM packages for iojs -<module> rather than (or in addition to) nodejs-module? Can this be avoided by running them with an alternatives-provided /usr/bin/node? [1] http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2015-07 -01/fesco.2015-07-01-18.01.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
