On Sun, Oct 09, 2022 at 10:58:58PM +0200, Dan Čermák wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com> writes: > > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 2:29 PM Ben Cotton <bcot...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > *snip* > > > When a Node.js release goes out of support, we have a question to > > answer: do we Obsolete it with a newer version? If so, which one? The > > most recent version or the oldest one? It will not be 100% compatible > > in either case. Do we Obsolete it with fedora-retired-packages? Do we > > just leave the packages in Fedora forever (possibly patching the > > `/usr/bin/node` binary to warn that it's out of support)? > > I would definitely obsolete it. I personally would obsolete it with the > default nodejs version, if there is one. > > > There's another potential upgrade issue: We have multiple choices of > > how to upgrade from the nodejs package to the nodejsXX packages: > > 1) Upgrading from either F36 or F37 will result in you getting Node.js > > 18. (This method is closest to how things worked prior to this Change, > > where the nodejs package would just get updated to the latest stable > > release) > > 2) Upgrading from F36 will move you onto nodejs16 in F38. Upgrading > > from F37 will move you onto Node.js 18 in F38. (This method maintains > > compatibility with applications running on the current system) > > 3) Upgrading from F36 or F37 will *remove* the nodejs package and the > > user will need to manually select one to install. (This method has > > increased friction, but more user choice) > > 4) Upgrading from F36 or F37 will leave the existing nodejs package on > > the system, receiving no updates. Users of F38 will need to manually > > remove and install a newer version. (This method is high-friction, > > offers nothing over any of the others and potentially leaves people > > vulnerable) > > > > With options 1), 3) and 4), we can make the change in F38 exclusively. > > However if we want to do 2), we *also* need to either backport this > > Change to Fedora 37 and Fedora 36 because otherwise we would have to > > continuously update the Obsoletes: values in F38. With 1) I can update > > the Obsoletes: to just treat any Node.js with an epoch < 3 as the > > trigger to move to nodejs18. > > > > My questions to those brave souls who have read this far: > > 1) Which do you think is the best of the above options for upgrades to F38? > > My personal preference would be Option 1. Imho it's a bit expected that > you might have to do some cleanup after a system upgrade. So moving to > the latest stable version sounds like a good overall compromise for most > users: you'll get the latest stable version and if you need an older > version, you'll (hopefully) figure it out during the post-upgrade > cleanup. (And we could implement it without backporting)
+1. It also sounds like this option is easiest on the maintainers. Zbyszek > > 2) What do we do about future upgrades in the following scenarios: > > a. The user has nodejsXX installed as the default interpreter. The > > nodejsXX package is no longer available upon upgrade (EOL). > > I would upgrade to the new default version. > > > b. The user has nodejsXX installed as the default interpreter. The > > nodejsXX package is available but non-default upon upgrade. > > Unless it is very simple to upgrade to that non-default version on > upgrade, I'd just upgrade to the new default/latest stable as well in > this case. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
