[Bug 1969450] Review Request: cockpit-certificates - Cockpit user interface for certificates

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1969450

Martin Pitt <mpitt@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mpitt@xxxxxxxxxx



--- Comment #4 from Martin Pitt <mpitt@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
> The license field should represent all the bundled JS too

Agreed. Is that just an issue of a missing `%license` tag that points to
dist/index.js.LICENSE.txt.gz ? (@Katerina -- we do that in c-podman) Or
literally in "License:"? What is the syntax for multiple licenses there? (Our
own code is LGPL, but bundled NPM modules are a wild mix of MIT, BSD, and many
others)

> That's why you predownload the node_modules amd cockpit lib in separate archives as shown in the SPEC file I provided you.

Just to make sure, you mean this, right?

> Source1:        cockpit-lib.tar.gz
> Source2:        %{name}-%{version}-nm.tgz
> Source3:        %{name}-%{version}-bundled-licenses.txt
> Source10:       get-cockpit-lib.sh
> Source11:       packages-bundler.sh

As Katerina already mentioned,  we don't do that in any other cockpit package
which is in Fedora, so doing that will take quite some time. But honestly it
doesn't buy anyone anything, other than just a whole lot of busywork, and
adding 350 MB of node_modules/ to an otherwise 1 MB tarball. Rebuilding the
webpack from a static node_modules/ copy is completely reproducible, so taking
the already built one is a *lot* more efficient, plus avoids transitive
licensing/source code problems with "we have to redistribute 735 npmjs.com
modules now" (as they are *also* prebuilt and not in preferred form of
modification).

A developer who wants to change something can just do that and run `make`,
which will download everything according to package-lock.json. The original
tarball *does* ship the source, it just ships the pre-built webpack in
addition.

I know that this situation sucks for distributions, that's just how the JS
world looks like these days :-(


> you must provide the unminified versions

If you just mean our own source code: That's of course contained in the release
tarballs.

[If you mean the node_modules dependencies: No, we can't. `npm
install`/npmjs.com packages/releases are also pre-built, and thus minified.
Building *everything* from source would mean to track down several hundred
projects from their upstreams, and building them first (and there is no
automation that applies to all of them). This is completely impractical, but
also I don't believe you actually meant that, as nothing in a distro gets built
like that.]


-- 
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
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-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/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux