On Mon, 2020-06-22 at 11:29 -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 3:09 PM Stephen Gallagher < > sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The Node.js SIG is very loosely organized. If you are a packager > > and > > write to the SIG to ask to be added to the FAS group > > gitnodejs-packaging, I'll go ahead and add you. > > Hi Stephen, > > Thanks. I'll send an email to the SIG mailing list. What is the SIG mailing list ? I'm confused > > > Zuzanna Svetlikova and I maintain the Node.js interpreter and NPM > > package tool in modular and non-modular Fedora releases. This is > > not > > going away. The packaging for these critical packages includes > > bundled > > NPM content from upstream rather than consuming packages in Fedora > > because the Node.js packaging ecosystem makes it realistically > > impossible to package every individual dependency into RPMs (NPM > > alone > > has 402 dependencies and it changes constantly). > > Sure, to be clear I wasn't worried about the interpreter and npm > itself-- thanks for the work you do maintaining that! I'm primarily > worried about the npm module ecosystem. > > > I've been meaning to bring up this topic on the Node.js SIG mailing > > list for a while: I think Fedora should largely get out of the game > > of > > delivering NPM modules and only concern itself with delivering > > tools > > that provide applications or support for other software in Fedora. > > So > > things like ycssmin and lessc would make sense to keep alive, but > > probably we would build them with their NPM dependencies bundled to > > match their upstream releases rather than waste time building > > dozens > > or hundreds of dependent packages in Fedora. > > > > I have some thoughts on how this could be made easier, but I'll > > open a > > different thread on that on nodejs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to > > discuss > > those. > > This seems sad, but probably inevitable given the mess that is the > npm > module ecosystem. My experience trying to package nodejs software has > been that the upstream version requirements on modules are usually > overly strict and can sometimes (but not always, of course) be > considerably softened or worked around-- but in order to package > every > dependency we'd wind up needing to maintain hundreds if not thousands > of packages, and it is a lot of work to keep them updated. So I > suppose I'd be cautiously in favor, provided there was some kind of > automation to help write/maintain this part of the spec. > > However... what should we do in the meantime to stop further nodejs > software from being orphaned and retired? I imagine it will take some > time to put together some tooling and/or guidelines for this, and > these packages are set to be retired imminently. Can we temporarily > allow the nodejs SIG fas group to become the POC of these packages to > stop their retirement? > > I've gone ahead and taken mocha (running tests will be useful > regardless of whether or not we start bundling NPM modules). I > haven't > yet figured out what I need to take to keep it + my other node > packages alive for now, but I'll work through that this evening if no > one suggests doing anything else. > > Ben Rosser > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Sérgio M. B. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
