[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GSoC NPM
|
From: |
Jan Nieuwenhuizen |
|
Subject: |
Re: GSoC NPM |
|
Date: |
Fri, 02 Sep 2016 18:23:48 +0200 |
|
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) |
Thompson, David writes:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Also, I found that you prefer going through the repository/github
>> instead of using the dist tarball. Why is that?
>
> The tarballs distributed by NPM are considered binaries, not source.
Ah I see. In some cases there are indeed some differences. So we'll
probably want to reverse the default: if a repository is present it is
most probably be better to get that. I only found significant
differences with the fibers package, though. Others just differ in
having an additional .gitignore and .npmignore file.
I found in some cases that repositories do not have release tags. In
such cases, it may be "better" to use the dist tarball, as you have a
better chance of getting the exact released version commit?
Greetings,
Jan
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.nl
- Re: GSoC NPM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2016/09/02
- Re: GSoC NPM, Thompson, David, 2016/09/02
- Re: GSoC NPM,
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <=
- Re: GSoC NPM, Jelle Licht, 2016/09/02
- Re: GSoC NPM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2016/09/04
- Re: GSoC NPM, Thompson, David, 2016/09/06
- NPM and trusted binaries, Pjotr Prins, 2016/09/06
- Re: NPM and trusted binaries, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/09/07
- Re: NPM and trusted binaries, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2016/09/07
- Re: NPM and trusted binaries, Pjotr Prins, 2016/09/08
- Re: NPM and trusted binaries, Jelle Licht, 2016/09/08
- Re: NPM and trusted binaries, Mike Gerwitz, 2016/09/07
- Re: NPM and trusted binaries, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2016/09/08