| 1 |
On 06/30/2015 03:56 AM, Ian Delaney wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Is this what I prompted about a year or more ago, and drew no interest |
| 4 |
> in pursuing the npm path? I cited an eclass called npm.eclass in a |
| 5 |
> dev's overlay. The conclusion was that using npm to install anything |
| 6 |
> competed with portage at a level that made it a 'no go'. This came |
| 7 |
> from members of the portage 'team'. It is a very awkward topic. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
No, but we may have wound up with a similar idea. I only became |
| 11 |
interested last week when somebody gave me a coffeescript program to |
| 12 |
deploy at work and there was no coffeescript. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
My eclass isn't using npm to do the actual install, since npm won't do a |
| 15 |
global install. I am using it as a lazy way to run the test suite ("npm |
| 16 |
test"), and I'm defaulting to npmjs.org as HOMEPAGE/SRC_URI because they |
| 17 |
have nice predictable URLs. But the src_install manually copies the |
| 18 |
javascript bits to a location where node can find them. |
Archives