Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:30:03 -0400 From: Steve Wills <steve@mouf.net> To: Joseph Mingrone <jrm@FreeBSD.org>, ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: sunpoet@FreeBSD.org, swills@FreeBSD.org, luca.pizzamiglio@gmail.com, adamw@FreeBSD.org, bradleythughes@fastmail.fm Subject: Re: situation with www/node6 and www/node Message-ID: <1cabf0dd-bf6f-d172-479b-cd5c0e9e707e@mouf.net> In-Reply-To: <86fug2cc5o.fsf@phe.ftfl.ca> References: <86fug2cc5o.fsf@phe.ftfl.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --5MfhqWD5N7a0rkK11Vg7QQoCvRDU7pkkA Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="NeHUkhcoQQvkepwXE2QxHM2MwiE4NxKSR"; protected-headers="v1" From: Steve Wills <steve@mouf.net> To: Joseph Mingrone <jrm@FreeBSD.org>, ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: sunpoet@FreeBSD.org, swills@FreeBSD.org, luca.pizzamiglio@gmail.com, adamw@FreeBSD.org, bradleythughes@fastmail.fm Message-ID: <1cabf0dd-bf6f-d172-479b-cd5c0e9e707e@mouf.net> Subject: Re: situation with www/node6 and www/node References: <86fug2cc5o.fsf@phe.ftfl.ca> In-Reply-To: <86fug2cc5o.fsf@phe.ftfl.ca> --NeHUkhcoQQvkepwXE2QxHM2MwiE4NxKSR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Can execjs work with node6? What else would have to change to get it all onto node6? Steve On 05/18/2017 13:22, Joseph Mingrone wrote: > Hello, >=20 > I am hitting an issue where the conflicting www/node6 and www/node > packages are attempting to be installed together. For example, the > upcoming net-im/mastodon pulls in www/yarn (which depends on www/node6 > by default), and indirectly depends on devel/rubygem-execjs (which > depends on www/node by default). >=20 > It would be ideal if all ports depended on the same node version by > default. Looking at the current state of the ports tree, it would make= > sense for everything to depend on www/node since the only two ports > depending on www/node6 by default are www/npm3 and www/yarn. But, Luca= > makes the point that version 7 of node is not what upstream recommends.= >=20 > Could we come to a consensus here? >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Joseph >=20 --NeHUkhcoQQvkepwXE2QxHM2MwiE4NxKSR-- --5MfhqWD5N7a0rkK11Vg7QQoCvRDU7pkkA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGjBAEBCgCNFiEEmPpBSlwqDvnP0K0N9c9isyB7G6EFAlkd2htfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDk4 RkE0MTRBNUMyQTBFRjlDRkQwQUQwREY1Q0Y2MkIzMjA3QjFCQTEPHHN0ZXZlQG1v dWYubmV0AAoJEPXPYrMgexuhkKQH/isFKKN6GJcgKSAGK49CJy4gWEHIMcKjGZiJ i8uvFtZc3IYwF5vlAo5b1/PMfI6d+0pQOsPKCeVpPY6iaKvV+KKfx5d5O4/2gNmg tHgAK8aD03j8RQR8+Krp7HNX33HiGuPv7R8PIQdfGrPWm5Pmzr5Q0hJjHoI7vB61 zcMQt0kqSDi180WoGdRLy+xvtYFVkT6sWzzDHl+FZYutyLHAikh97QhM4dd0AR3T 8rw/etmqNNzErHKtalYgP08YHoeQkqQTFo+/60+uKJrvT125Cf6BBXyw1bHf6CLi i3aJuBTjKmWZ3CcRv+YH7hCJODQtQDnug8pupU/d9i3tSElWdss= =9A1T -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --5MfhqWD5N7a0rkK11Vg7QQoCvRDU7pkkA--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1cabf0dd-bf6f-d172-479b-cd5c0e9e707e>