[Bug 634909] Review Request: v8 - JavaScript Engine

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634909

--- Comment #10 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@xxxxx> 2010-12-05 08:24:52 EST ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I'm not committing to reviewing this but I noticed a couple things:
> 
> 1) I see that we're installing jsmin.py... If this is a derivative of the jsmin
> stuff that Douglas Crockford did then we can't do that.  jsmin is not under an
> fsf free license (the silly "must be used for good, not evil clause does that
> to us).

It's not.

>From ChangeLog:

2009-10-07: Version 1.3.14

        Implemented a new JavaScript minifier for compressing the source of
        the built-in JavaScript. This removes non-Open Source code from Douglas
        Crockford from the project.

> 2) usually we don't make shared libraries if upstream is not making shared
> libraries due to being afraid that we'll choose a version that upstream will
> later stomp on.  The same idea (upstream reusing the version number we use for
> a later, API incompatible, release of their own) would seem to apply here. 
> However, I do see that Debian is providing versioned dynamic libs (Their
> patches are different, though... perhaps we should adopt their approach?
> http://packages.debian.org/experimental/libv8-2.4.7)  The best outcome would be
> for upstream to start providing versioned dynamic libraries.  Have you
> contacted them about this?  The debian patches are to the build files so they
> could be an appropriate starting point for that discussion.

In this version upstream provides a target to build shared libraries.
Unfortunatelly, they picked a rather weird SONAME (v8-version.so; contrary to
more customary v8.so.version, that Debian uses). I did not find a specification
that would mandate the latter form, so I'm sticking with upstream for now. I
don't care much about that though, if I'm proved that it's not a good idea I'll
change it.

(In reply to comment #9)
> Could you please add a pkg-config file to v8-devel?  It would make it easier to
> use as a library.

Well, not now. I guess this is something you'd need upstream to do; if upstream
does not do that, packages that use v8 won't use pkg-config either.

SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/v8.spec
SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/v8-2.5.9-1.fc15.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]