GNU bug report logs -
#47282
[PATCH 00/13] node going forward
Previous Next
Reported by: Jelle Licht <jlicht <at> fsfe.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 14:58:02 UTC
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Done: Jelle Licht <jlicht <at> fsfe.org>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
Hi Jelle,
Jelle Licht <jlicht <at> fsfe.org> writes:
> So, some people seem to be interested in this one; please review and test.
Now that I’ve finally taken the time to dig into what you’ve done here –
I must say it’s very impressive!
I’ve taken the presumptuous step of re-rolling the series. The reason
is that all the “(delete 'build)” bits were bothering me. I decided to
have the build system check the “package.json” file for a build script
before trying to run it. Since that change required changing all the
other patches, I thought it would be easier to just post the updated
patches. Also, I’m hoping to spare you some trouble (since you’ve
already gone to a lot!).
Of course, this approach gave me free reign to pick nits. :) Below is
a list of bigger things that I changed, but I also adjusted some commit
messages, indentation, descriptions, and other minor things.
• Add the check for a “build” script as explained above, and adjust
the “npm-build-system” packages accordingly.
• Rename “libuv-node” to “libuv-for-node”, as this style is used for
similar packages. I also changed the name to just “libuv” and
marked it hidden.
• Change the “Fix incorrect import semantics” comments to “Fix
imports for esbuild”. To me, if TypeScript’s tsc likes the
imports, they are correct TypeScript (despite the esbuild bug
report).
• Set the llhttp version to 2.1.3, and add a patch to fix
CVE-2020-8287. The resulting C source files are identical to the
ones shipped with Node.js 14.16.0. This makes the tests a little
simpler, allowing the removal of the HTTP method superset change
and fixing the reading one byte failure.
• Fix the SIGXFSZ failure by fixing a “/bin/sh” in the test.
The final result is still a little messy, but I don’t think we should
hold this back any longer. It’s a significant step forward, and it puts
us in better shape to improve things incrementally.
WDYT? Let me know if I made anything worse! :) If the altered patches
look good to you, I suggest you go ahead and push them.
-- Tim
This bug report was last modified 4 years and 101 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.