Martin Pitt [2020-09-28 8:50 +0200]:
> Of course the difference is that gcc or binutils are properly packaged in
> distros and themselves are built from source, which isn't true for e.g. sass.
> So if your efforts are about properly packaging compiled devDependencies, then
> that's a very laudable approach. There aren't too many of these,
...
a quick grep only revealed that one result:
❱❱❱ find node_modules -type f | xargs file | grep ELF
./node_modules/node-sass/vendor/linux-x64-83/binding.node:
ELF
64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (GNU/Linux), dynamically linked,
BuildID[sha1]=6cf5841af0347f2eb2a606041a088dd0afacc920, not stripped
So that would certainly be a good candidate for packaging in the distro.
https://packages.debian.org/buster/sassc sounds promising, I put it on my TODO
list to see if that works instead of node-sass. They certainly both use the
same libsass. Fedora has it as well.
Martin
_______________________________________________
cockpit-devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/[email protected]
