#319 Bundling exception for nodejs-dateformat
Closed: Fixed None Opened 6 years ago by jamielinux.

nodejs-dateformat: Steven Levithan's excellent dateFormat() function for Node.js, which provides a simple way to format dates and times according to a user-specified mask.

Review Request:[[BR]]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977118

(I've actually also already packaged the original project as "dateformat" in Fedora.)

Life would be simple if nodejs-dateformat was just a repackaging of the original project for Node.js (and I could subsequently just symlink the file), but the authors have made enough changes that it's really a fork.

Original project (~120 lines):[[BR]]
http://blog.stevenlevithan.com/archives/date-time-format [[BR]]
http://stevenlevithan.com/assets/misc/date.format.js

Forked project (~180 lines):[[BR]]
https://github.com/felixge/node-dateformat [[BR]]
https://raw.github.com/felixge/node-dateformat/4c49d1a0582c/lib/dateformat.js

This is the largest block of new code, though there are also a few other scattered changes:[[BR]]
https://github.com/felixge/node-dateformat/blob/master/lib/dateformat.js#L25-61

Full diff from original:[[BR]]
http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/dateformat.diff

The Readme.md lists the following changes:

  • Removed the Date.prototype.format method. Sorry folks, but extending
    native prototypes is for suckers.
  • Added a module.exports = dateFormat; statement at the bottom
  • Added the placeholder N to get the ISO 8601 numeric representation of
    the day of the week

I don't think it would be possible to use the original as a drop-in replacement. There are also already >100 other Node modules that depend on nodejs-dateformat and expect the new behaviour. I've contacted the original author by email to ask whether he would consider integrating the changes, and waiting for a reply. (NB: The original has not seen any changes in 6 years.)

I would therefore like to request a bundling exception for nodejs-dateformat and would appreciate any advice.


We discussed this at today's meeting. We lacked quorum to finish a vote but the members who were present considered this to be a fork and therefore allowed. Current voting:

+1: tibbs, RemiFedora, toshio, limburgher

We'd need one more +1 to pass this. spot, racor, geppetto, SmootherFr0gZ, and Rathann have nt voted yet.

@spot, racor, geppetto, SmootherFr0gZ, and Rathann: Just a reminder that one more +1 from any of you would let this pass and we could close the ticket.

this request is approved. jamielinux, as this is a fork there's no need for a virtual provide.

Metadata Update from @toshio:
- Issue assigned to toshio

3 years ago

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata