Re: [gentoo-dev] Fw: reviewboard and its bugs
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek) < neurog...@gentoo.org> wrote: > I originally responded to another thread. Here is what I said: > < > I gave this a try some time ago and was bummed down by some things. I dont > like nodejs enough, and npm devs seems to not care about centrally/globally > installed packages. There are some npm packages that have to be modified so > they can work when globally installed and it gets boring after a while. npm > packages tend to be really small so one package can have a really high > number of deps. > For NodeJS, the first-class thing is web applications, and as far as their concerned, the "best practice" is, if your application uses a library, it should have its own copy of it. And, for web applications, that *does* guarantee that you know what version of everything you're deploying, and allows an application to have dependencies which themselves have conflicting dependencies - which helps ensure deployment is uncomplicated and you know what you're deploying. However, globally installed packages are supported, and are increasingly important as people discover NodeJS is useful for things that are not web-application related. So it seems like something that's not going away, and sooner or later package managers will have to deal with it. > If anybody is interested in this, check out my repo with npm packages[0] > and a really simple g-npm tool[1] to generate ebuilds for them. These tools > might be outdated cause I don't use nodejs anymore and I dont care much > about it. > g-npm looks interesting. -Tim
Re: [gentoo-dev] Fw: reviewboard and its bugs
I originally responded to another thread. Here is what I said: < I gave this a try some time ago and was bummed down by some things. I dont like nodejs enough, and npm devs seems to not care about centrally/globally installed packages. There are some npm packages that have to be modified so they can work when globally installed and it gets boring after a while. npm packages tend to be really small so one package can have a really high number of deps. If anybody is interested in this, check out my repo with npm packages[0] and a really simple g-npm tool[1] to generate ebuilds for them. These tools might be outdated cause I don't use nodejs anymore and I dont care much about it. Feel free to ping me if you have questions. Cheers, [0] https://github.com/neurogeek/gentoo-overlay (I might have something more recent somewhere) [1] https://github.com/neurogeek/g-npm > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Tim Boudreau wrote: > FWIW, I suspect npm is here to stay, and it has a facility for installing > system-wide utilities; and NodeJS is both usable and convenient for > system-level scripting which has no connection to webapps, and has the > ability to build native code that integrates with NodeJS code as well. > > IMO, it would be pretty insane to write packages that duplicate npm > packages; support within portage for installing things with it makes more > sense. I've occasionally toyed with the idea of a webapp that exposes > packages in npm as ebuilds and generates the required metadata on the fly, > so anything in the npm repository would simply *be* a Gentoo package. Not > sure the idea is viable, but it might be. If that existed, and then some > known-stable subset of packages for which system-wide installation is > appropriate could be mirrored in the portage tree, that would probably be > ideal. > > -Tim > > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:48 PM, IAN DELANEY wrote: > >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 08:45:21 +0800 >> From: IAN DELANEY >> To: gentoo-pyt...@lists.gentoo.org >> Subject: reviewboard and its bugs >> >> cancel the gentoo-python@lists, was intended for gentoo-dev@lists >> >> The package reviewboard has reached a stage of warranting this >> submission to the ML. A simple search of reviewboard in bugzilla lists >> a few 'user submitted' bugs and no less than 3 sec bugs. This package I >> added initially because interest was expressed mainly by my final >> mentor and the other (prior) co-maintainer. Because of changes to >> reviewboard upstream, we need a new eclass and category to cater to >> certain js packages. >> >> Now wishing to re-write all I have already written in the bugs, in >> summary, reviewboard has become unworkable by the developers of >> reviewboard itself going down the path of nodejs. Enter npm. >> npm was an unknown to me until Djblets and django-pipeline ebuilds >> failed due to the absence of UglifyJS and some related js deps. On >> being informed of ebuilds for this and related deps in the overlay of >> neurogeek, I discovered they required npm which it seems comes in >> nodejs. The response drawn by fellow devs over npm is in my limited >> experience unprecedented. The overall reaction was leave it and don't >> go there. What became apparent from the ebulds in neurogeek's overlay >> was that these deps didn't lend themselves well to writing ebuilds for >> them for portage. In the overlay there is in fact an npm eclass to >> overseer their installation into the system. >> >> After some somewhat reluctant discussion of npm in irc, it has at least >> been suggested that the use of nodejs' UglifyJS in django-pipeline >> could be patched out to relieve us all of any reliance or involvement >> of npm to install these js oriented deps. That has not ofcourse been >> attempted or tested and allows for the probability of breaking Djblets >> and or reviewboard which I suspect has been written by reviewboard >> developers to explicitly depend on and call these deps. The decision it >> seems isn't whether to allows npm into portage, it already comes with >> nodejs correct me if I misunderstand. The question is whether to >> support this npm installing packages into a gentoo system by ebuilds >> essentially outside of portage. This requires an eclass and it has >> been suggested a whole new category for portage under which to >> categorise these npm type packages. Such an eclass has already been >> written, however, that it has never been added to portage along with js >> style packages in the overlay, to me at least, strongly suggests the >> author always had reservations with its addition. >> >> There is ofcourse the alternative; to write ebuilds to install these >> packages without npm involvement. This would still require an >> eclass anyway. Either way, nodejs and java script are totally outside >> the realm of pythonic packages and are therefore outside my realm >> of knowledge and experience. Reviewboard developers have essentia
Re: [gentoo-dev] Fw: reviewboard and its bugs
FWIW, I suspect npm is here to stay, and it has a facility for installing system-wide utilities; and NodeJS is both usable and convenient for system-level scripting which has no connection to webapps, and has the ability to build native code that integrates with NodeJS code as well. IMO, it would be pretty insane to write packages that duplicate npm packages; support within portage for installing things with it makes more sense. I've occasionally toyed with the idea of a webapp that exposes packages in npm as ebuilds and generates the required metadata on the fly, so anything in the npm repository would simply *be* a Gentoo package. Not sure the idea is viable, but it might be. If that existed, and then some known-stable subset of packages for which system-wide installation is appropriate could be mirrored in the portage tree, that would probably be ideal. -Tim On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:48 PM, IAN DELANEY wrote: > > > Begin forwarded message: > > Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 08:45:21 +0800 > From: IAN DELANEY > To: gentoo-pyt...@lists.gentoo.org > Subject: reviewboard and its bugs > > cancel the gentoo-python@lists, was intended for gentoo-dev@lists > > The package reviewboard has reached a stage of warranting this > submission to the ML. A simple search of reviewboard in bugzilla lists > a few 'user submitted' bugs and no less than 3 sec bugs. This package I > added initially because interest was expressed mainly by my final > mentor and the other (prior) co-maintainer. Because of changes to > reviewboard upstream, we need a new eclass and category to cater to > certain js packages. > > Now wishing to re-write all I have already written in the bugs, in > summary, reviewboard has become unworkable by the developers of > reviewboard itself going down the path of nodejs. Enter npm. > npm was an unknown to me until Djblets and django-pipeline ebuilds > failed due to the absence of UglifyJS and some related js deps. On > being informed of ebuilds for this and related deps in the overlay of > neurogeek, I discovered they required npm which it seems comes in > nodejs. The response drawn by fellow devs over npm is in my limited > experience unprecedented. The overall reaction was leave it and don't > go there. What became apparent from the ebulds in neurogeek's overlay > was that these deps didn't lend themselves well to writing ebuilds for > them for portage. In the overlay there is in fact an npm eclass to > overseer their installation into the system. > > After some somewhat reluctant discussion of npm in irc, it has at least > been suggested that the use of nodejs' UglifyJS in django-pipeline > could be patched out to relieve us all of any reliance or involvement > of npm to install these js oriented deps. That has not ofcourse been > attempted or tested and allows for the probability of breaking Djblets > and or reviewboard which I suspect has been written by reviewboard > developers to explicitly depend on and call these deps. The decision it > seems isn't whether to allows npm into portage, it already comes with > nodejs correct me if I misunderstand. The question is whether to > support this npm installing packages into a gentoo system by ebuilds > essentially outside of portage. This requires an eclass and it has > been suggested a whole new category for portage under which to > categorise these npm type packages. Such an eclass has already been > written, however, that it has never been added to portage along with js > style packages in the overlay, to me at least, strongly suggests the > author always had reservations with its addition. > > There is ofcourse the alternative; to write ebuilds to install these > packages without npm involvement. This would still require an > eclass anyway. Either way, nodejs and java script are totally outside > the realm of pythonic packages and are therefore outside my realm > of knowledge and experience. Reviewboard developers have essentially > created a huge dilemma for users of reviewboard in gentoo by going > electing to use this js 'toolchain'. While I normally go to any > lengths to maintain any and all packages within the python realm, this > reviewboard has gone way beyond that realm. Until this, its > underbelly was pure python and posed no real problem. Now I have a > growing and unwelcome list of bugs of this package assigned to me as > the sole remaining maintainer which are now unworkable. > > The real problem here is that there is an apparent keen set of would > be users of this package, one of whom is a gentoo dev, who is to be > found in at least one of those bugs. To delete or mask the package > amounts to a clean solution, and also abandons gentoo users looking > to have the package made work for them. > > In summary, because of changes to reviewboard upstream, we need a new > eclass and category to write ebuilds to these packages and add them to > portage. > > > > -- > kind regards > > Ian Delaney > > > -- > kind regards > > I
Re: tl;dr: [gentoo-dev] Fw: reviewboard and its bugs
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Alex Xu wrote: > tl;dr: python package has nodejs dependencies, we don't have a mechanism > like distutils.eclass to install those system-wide. > > I gave this a try some time ago and was bummed down by some things. I dont like nodejs enough, and npm devs seems to not care about centrally/globally installed packages. There are some npm packages that have to be modified so they can work when globally installed and it gets boring after a while. npm packages tend to be really small so one package can have a really high number of deps. If anybody is interested in this, check out my repo with npm packages[0] and a really simple g-npm tool[1] to generate ebuilds for them. These tools might be outdated cause I don't use nodejs anymore and I dont care much about it. Feel free to ping me if you have questions. Cheers, [0] https://github.com/neurogeek/gentoo-overlay (I might have something more recent somewhere) [1] https://github.com/neurogeek/g-npm -- Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek) Gentoo Developer
tl;dr: [gentoo-dev] Fw: reviewboard and its bugs
tl;dr: python package has nodejs dependencies, we don't have a mechanism like distutils.eclass to install those system-wide. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Fw: reviewboard and its bugs
Begin forwarded message: Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 08:45:21 +0800 From: IAN DELANEY To: gentoo-pyt...@lists.gentoo.org Subject: reviewboard and its bugs cancel the gentoo-python@lists, was intended for gentoo-dev@lists The package reviewboard has reached a stage of warranting this submission to the ML. A simple search of reviewboard in bugzilla lists a few 'user submitted' bugs and no less than 3 sec bugs. This package I added initially because interest was expressed mainly by my final mentor and the other (prior) co-maintainer. Because of changes to reviewboard upstream, we need a new eclass and category to cater to certain js packages. Now wishing to re-write all I have already written in the bugs, in summary, reviewboard has become unworkable by the developers of reviewboard itself going down the path of nodejs. Enter npm. npm was an unknown to me until Djblets and django-pipeline ebuilds failed due to the absence of UglifyJS and some related js deps. On being informed of ebuilds for this and related deps in the overlay of neurogeek, I discovered they required npm which it seems comes in nodejs. The response drawn by fellow devs over npm is in my limited experience unprecedented. The overall reaction was leave it and don't go there. What became apparent from the ebulds in neurogeek's overlay was that these deps didn't lend themselves well to writing ebuilds for them for portage. In the overlay there is in fact an npm eclass to overseer their installation into the system. After some somewhat reluctant discussion of npm in irc, it has at least been suggested that the use of nodejs' UglifyJS in django-pipeline could be patched out to relieve us all of any reliance or involvement of npm to install these js oriented deps. That has not ofcourse been attempted or tested and allows for the probability of breaking Djblets and or reviewboard which I suspect has been written by reviewboard developers to explicitly depend on and call these deps. The decision it seems isn't whether to allows npm into portage, it already comes with nodejs correct me if I misunderstand. The question is whether to support this npm installing packages into a gentoo system by ebuilds essentially outside of portage. This requires an eclass and it has been suggested a whole new category for portage under which to categorise these npm type packages. Such an eclass has already been written, however, that it has never been added to portage along with js style packages in the overlay, to me at least, strongly suggests the author always had reservations with its addition. There is ofcourse the alternative; to write ebuilds to install these packages without npm involvement. This would still require an eclass anyway. Either way, nodejs and java script are totally outside the realm of pythonic packages and are therefore outside my realm of knowledge and experience. Reviewboard developers have essentially created a huge dilemma for users of reviewboard in gentoo by going electing to use this js 'toolchain'. While I normally go to any lengths to maintain any and all packages within the python realm, this reviewboard has gone way beyond that realm. Until this, its underbelly was pure python and posed no real problem. Now I have a growing and unwelcome list of bugs of this package assigned to me as the sole remaining maintainer which are now unworkable. The real problem here is that there is an apparent keen set of would be users of this package, one of whom is a gentoo dev, who is to be found in at least one of those bugs. To delete or mask the package amounts to a clean solution, and also abandons gentoo users looking to have the package made work for them. In summary, because of changes to reviewboard upstream, we need a new eclass and category to write ebuilds to these packages and add them to portage. -- kind regards Ian Delaney -- kind regards Ian Delaney
