From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPS id E1F216F586 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 12:43:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with UTF8SMTP id D5EEE19A95 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 12:43:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with UTF8SMTPS id 5CB0019A85 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 12:43:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with UTF8SMTP id 2D48B44198; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 12:43:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 12:43:19 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20210719103149.3430829-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20210719103149.3430829-2-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <5fdfd5ae-d601-3032-37f8-8b5ec618dc9e@proxmox.com> <1438230b-4262-755f-0d3a-2c08f941388f@proxmox.com> <44529da5-ef39-2bf7-3067-300cfba53eda@proxmox.com> From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: <44529da5-ef39-2bf7-3067-300cfba53eda@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.752 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.58 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] applied: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] ship proper nodejs module 'pve-eslint' X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 10:43:20 -0000 On 8/30/21 12:36, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 8/30/21 um 12:06 PM schrieb Dominik Csapak: >> On 8/30/21 11:25, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >>> Am 8/30/21 um 11:17 AM schrieb Dominik Csapak: >>>> On 8/25/21 18:38, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >>>>> On 19/07/2021 12:31, Dominik Csapak wrote: >>>>>> instead of concatenating the eslint module into our app.js, ship >>>>>> a 'pve-eslint' module that exports the built eslint module >>>>>> >>>>>> to do this, we have to leave the module type on 'umd' instead of >>>>>> changing to 'var' so that nodejs can properly import it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak >>>>>> --- >>>>>> Makefile | 2 +- >>>>> >>>>> Does not applies here, did not really investigated yet though: >>>>> >>>>> Applying: ship proper nodejs module 'pve-eslint' >>>>> Using index info to reconstruct a base tree... >>>>> error: removal patch leaves file contents >>>>> error: src/Makefile: patch does not apply >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> ah yes, sorry, i created the patches with '-D' >>>> since the second patch would not fit on the mailing list >>>> >>>> shall i send 1/3 and 3/3 again with out -D ? >>>> the only conflict is that src/Makefile is deleted >>>> (2/3 can be done separately anyway) >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I can also pull this from a staff repo if you prefer that? >>> >> >> ok, its the 'nodejs' branch of my staff repo for 'pve-eslint' >> > > great, applied, thanks! > thx, please do not forget to run 'make buildupstream' and commiting the eslint file before bumping :) (or i can do it and push to my staff repo if you want)