Open Stack

On 11/12/2014 02:17 AM, Matthias Runge wrote:
> On 11/11/14 10:53, Jiri Tomasek wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> Thanks for writing this up!
> 
>>> The Storyboard project has successfully integrated these tools into
>>> the OpenStack CI environment.
> 
> OpenStack CI and distributors are different, because OpenStack CI does
> not distribute software.
>
>>
>> Using javascript tooling (yeoman, grunt, bower, etc.) has this issue of
>> being dependent on nodejs which if I recall correctly is causing
>> problems for packagers as some versions of these tools require different
>> nodejs versions - please Mathias correct me if I am wrong. I know this
>> discussion has been here before, but using these tools is necessary for
>> effective development. So we need to resolve the problem asap.
>> Storyboard does not have this issue as it is infra thing.
> 
> As far as I know, those tools don't require different nodejs versions.
> But: we can not have different node.js versions installed at the same
> time. I assume, this is true for all distributions. Creating and
> maintaining parallel installable versions just sucks and causes many issues.
> 
> In the past, customers wanted the complete tool-chain to modify their
> version of dashboard. I understand, this is not an issue, for all
> companies not distributing software, but directly providing services
> based on that software.
> 
> I will have to go through all dependencies and do a review, if those are
> acceptable for inclusion e.g in Fedora. The same is true for Thomas
> Goirand for inclusion in Debian.
> 
>>
>> Petr Belanyi has added optional jshint install for js linting into
>> Horizon and it installs nodejs as it depends on it. Could this approach
>> work for our need of js tooling too? [1]
> 
> Sigh, this nonsense doesn't go away? This is the third time the same
> issue comes up.
> 
> jshint is NOT free software.
> 
> https://github.com/jshint/jshint/blob/master/src/jshint.js#L19

Reasonable people disagree on this point. I, for one, am one of them. In
my opnion:

A usage clause in a license header is bonghits and unenforcable, as
copyright terms cover the legality of copying things, not how you use
them. For those terms to be enforcable, it would need to be a EULA,
which jshint does not have.

However, other people disagree with me, which is their prerogative.

I'm mainly suggesting that it's probably not nonsense, it's a
disagreement, and it's also probably not going to go away, since jshint
is far and away the most common javascript linting tool in existence.
Maybe some of the people who are vehemently opposed to the clause in the
license header should figure out an alternative.