On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:18:34AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 15.1.2013 18:43, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a): > >On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:51:06AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > >>Hi, > >> > >>Since there is already NodeJs in Fedora, shouldn't be the JavaScript > >>exception [1] revisited? There are JavaScript libraries reviews, such > >>as CofeeScript [2], already ongoing. However, there is also it copy > >>of CoffeeScript in rubygem-coffee-script-source. I know I am going to > >>make my life harder, on the other hand, this is just system library > >>and should not be duplicated. > >> > >The exception shouldn't need revisiting (things that run on NodeJS should > >not be covered by the exception under the current guidelines) "At this time > >JavaScript intended to be served to a web browser on another computer is > >specifically exempted from this but this will likely change in the future." > ><= that exception does not cover JavaScript that runs on the local > >computer. > > You are partially right. Nevertheless, in time we did review of > rubygem-coffee-script-source, there was no need to unbundle the > coffeescript.js from the package IMO, since there were no other place > where to put it anyway. There was no other package which would > provide it. There was no easy way how to execute it, etc. But now, it > should be changed. There might be more packages like this. > So if I'm understanding that coffee-script-source has javascript that runs on the machine that it's installed on and that it has a different upstream than rubygem-coffee-script, then it should not have passed review. The lack of JavaScript Guidelines that address where these files go and how to access them is separate from the fact that it's not allowed to ship these files bundled in another package. If you know of other cases like this, please let me/us know as they need to be unbundled. As to how to resolve these problems -- without JavaScript Guidelines, it is very hard to solve them. It seems that the NodeJS maintainers are coming up with some de facto methods for Fedora. I'd be happy to review those and canonicalize them so that when we do this unbundling we are able to at least apply consistency to the new packages. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpYOieqTdrmC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
