https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024589
--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes <t...@compton.nu> ---
First things first, latest upstream release is 0.2.0 so this needs updating to
that.
Next, and before I do a full review, I think we need to establish what rules we
are working to here. There are two packages which come out of this:
* The pure javascript one, which needs to comply with the javascript guidelines
(so should install in %{_jsdir} not %{_webassetdir}) and should be called
js-zlib-js I think. That is rather ugly I admit but it seems to be the logical
consequence of the naming rules...
* The node package, which needs to comply with the node guidelines, and should
be called nodejs-zlibjs (note the node module has no dot in the name per
https://www.npmjs.org/package/zlibjs).
What I'm not sure about is whether it is best to package this from git as you
have done, or from the NPM registry as the node guidelines would normally
require.
That also goes to the question of what the source rpm should be called...
--
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
