Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 14:56:57 +0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How should we name node-js ports ? Message-ID: <210be3b5-35a8-5458-8991-7759f964f8ef@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <ba4cd1f6-2bd7-f710-2e6c-56c470c5ef7d@bebik.net> References: <ba4cd1f6-2bd7-f710-2e6c-56c470c5ef7d@bebik.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 14/5/17 8:16 pm, Rodrigo Osorio wrote: > Hi, > > I have a bunch of nodejs ports to add, most of them as dependencies, > and I wonder if we can find a naming standard like adding 'node' or > 'node-js' prefix in the name ; I personally prefer 'node'. > > As a result a port who install the node package xxx will be named > 'node-xxx' > > Does it sounds good to you ? > > Thanks for your time, this brings up the whole question of whether we should package these things ourselves anyhow. python and perl have their own schemes (pip et al.) and with npm (and others) node is no exception. it seems that to chase these packages down manually is a never ending task. maybe the way we should handle it is to have a generic "handover to external package manager" feature, so that we somehow let npm (or whatever) do it ting but then take the output result an put it into our database. At $JOB we have the issue of many many node modules for our new gen UI and it causes us a great headache. > > -- rodrigo > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?210be3b5-35a8-5458-8991-7759f964f8ef>