[EPEL-devel] Re: nodejs update

[Stephen Gallagher]

On 09/08/2016 01:27 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 08/22/2016 11:23 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>
>> OK, as we stated before, we really need to get Node.js 6.x into the
>> updates-testing repository soon. We mentioned that we wanted it to sit there 
>> for
>> at least a month before we cut over, and "at least a month" means "by next 
>> week"
>> since the cut over is planned for 2016-10-01.
>>
>> I'm putting together a COPR right now as a first pass at this upgrade:
>>
>> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/nodejs-sig/nodejs-epel/
>>
>> I've run into the following blocker issues:
>>
>> * We cannot jump to 6.x in EPEL 6 easily at this time, because upstream 
>> strictly
>> requires GCC 4.8 or later and we only have 4.4 in EPEL 6. It might be 
>> possible
>> to resolve this with SCLs, but I am no expert there. Zuzana?
>>
>> * Node.js 4.x and 6.x both *strictly* require functionality from OpenSSL 
>> 1.0.2
>> and cannot run (or indeed build) against OpenSSL 1.0.1. Currently, both EPEL 
>> 6
>> and EPEL 7 have 1.0.1 in their buildroots. I am not aware of any solution 
>> (SCL
>> or otherwise) for linking EPEL to a newer version of OpenSSL.
>>
>> The OpenSSL 1.0.2 problem is a significant one; we cannot build against the
>> bundled copy of OpenSSL because it includes patented algorithms that are not
>> acceptable for inclusion in Fedora. We also cannot trivially backport 
>> Fedora's
>> OpenSSL 1.0.2 packages because EPEL forbids upgrading packages provided by 
>> the
>> base RHEL/CentOS repositories.
>>
>>
>> Right now, the only thing I can think of would be for someone to build a
>> parallel-installable OpenSSL 1.0.2 package for EPEL 6 and EPEL 7 (similar to 
>> the
>> openssl101e package available for EPEL 5) and patch our specfile to be able 
>> to
>> work with that instead.
>>
>> This is a task I'm not anxious to embark upon personally; there is too much
>> overhead in maintaining a fork of OpenSSL to make me comfortable.
>>
>> How shall we proceed?
>>

Thanks to a lot of help from Haikel Guemar, I now have working builds of Node.js
6.5.0 against EPEL 7. His team was able to write adapt a patch that Solaris
folks wrote to work against OpenSSL 1.0.1. I have put them up in a COPR[1] and
also am running a build in the official EPEL 7 branch which I will get into
updates-testing ASAP.

This *is* a world-breaking change. There have been numerous
backwards-incompatible changes since Node.js 0.10.x, so testing will be 
imperative.

Reminder: Node.js 0.10.x hits EOL on 2016-10-01, so there is no hanging on to
the old version.


[1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/nodejs-sig/nodejs-epel/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: nodejs update

[Joe Orton]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 01:27:54PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > * Node.js 4.x and 6.x both *strictly* require functionality from OpenSSL 
> > 1.0.2
> > and cannot run (or indeed build) against OpenSSL 1.0.1. Currently, both 
> > EPEL 6
> > and EPEL 7 have 1.0.1 in their buildroots. I am not aware of any solution 
> > (SCL
> > or otherwise) for linking EPEL to a newer version of OpenSSL.

Have you got details on what exactly is required from 1.0.2?  Is it ALPN 
support?

I strongly suspect it will be possible (with sufficient effort) to patch 
node to build against older OpenSSL, albeit at the cost of losing some 
features.  

There is a trade-off here between disabling 1.0.2 features & waiting for 
RHEL OpenSSL to catch up, versus having to maintain & patch a copy of 
OpenSSL 1.0.2 in addition to the RHEL OpenSSL.  i.e. someone is ready to 
deal with patching all future Critical security issues in a bundled 
OpenSSL.

Regards, Joe

-- 
Joe Orton // Red Hat Core Services
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: nodejs update

[Rich Megginson]

On 09/08/2016 11:27 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:

On 08/22/2016 11:23 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:

On 08/11/2016 07:43 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:

On 08/11/2016 05:16 AM, Zuzana Svetlikova wrote:

Hi!

As some of you may know, nodejs package that is present in
EPEL is pretty outdated. The current v0.10 that we have will
go EOL in October and npm (package manager) is already not
maintained.

Currently, upstreams' plan is to have two versions of Long
Term Support (LTS) at once, one in active development and one
in maintenance mode.
Currently active is v4, which is switching to maintenance in
April and v6 which is switching to LTS in October.
This is also reason why we would like to skip v4, although
both will get security updates. Nodejs v6 also comes with
newer npm and v8 (which might best be bundled, as it is in
Fedora and Software Collections) (v8 might concern ruby and
database maintainers, but old v8 package still remains in
the repo).

There was also an idea to have both LTS versions in repo,
but we're not quite sure, how we'd do it and if it's even a
good idea.

Also, another thing is, if it is worth of updating every year
to new LTS or update only after the current one goes EOL.
According to guidelines, I'd say it's the latter, but it's
not exactly how node development works and some feedback from
users on this would be nice, because I have none.


tl;dr Need to update nodejs, but can't decide if v4 or v6,
v4: will update sooner, shorter support (2018-04-01)
v6: longer support (2019-04-01), *might* break more things,
 won't be in stable sooner than mid-October if everything
 goes well

FYI, I think this tl;dr missed explaining why v6 won't be in stable until
mid-October. What Zuzana and I discussed on another list is that the Node.js v6
schedule has it going into LTS mode on the same day that 0.10.x reaches EOL.
However, v6 is already out and available. The major thing that changes at that
point is just that from then on, they commit to adding no more major features
(as I understand it). This is the best moment for us to switch over to it.

However, in the meantime we will probably want to be carrying 6.x in
updates-testing for at least a month prior to declaring it stable (with
autokarma disabled) with wide announcements about the impending upgrade. This
will be safe to do since Node.js 6.x has already reached a point where no
backwards-incompatible changes are allowed in, so we can start the migration
process early.


OK, as we stated before, we really need to get Node.js 6.x into the
updates-testing repository soon. We mentioned that we wanted it to sit there for
at least a month before we cut over, and "at least a month" means "by next week"
since the cut over is planned for 2016-10-01.

I'm putting together a COPR right now as a first pass at this upgrade:

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/nodejs-sig/nodejs-epel/

I've run into the following blocker issues:

* We cannot jump to 6.x in EPEL 6 easily at this time, because upstream strictly
requires GCC 4.8 or later and we only have 4.4 in EPEL 6. It might be possible
to resolve this with SCLs, but I am no expert there. Zuzana?

* Node.js 4.x and 6.x both *strictly* require functionality from OpenSSL 1.0.2
and cannot run (or indeed build) against OpenSSL 1.0.1. Currently, both EPEL 6
and EPEL 7 have 1.0.1 in their buildroots. I am not aware of any solution (SCL
or otherwise) for linking EPEL to a newer version of OpenSSL.

The OpenSSL 1.0.2 problem is a significant one; we cannot build against the
bundled copy of OpenSSL because it includes patented algorithms that are not
acceptable for inclusion in Fedora. We also cannot trivially backport Fedora's
OpenSSL 1.0.2 packages because EPEL forbids upgrading packages provided by the
base RHEL/CentOS repositories.


Right now, the only thing I can think of would be for someone to build a
parallel-installable OpenSSL 1.0.2 package for EPEL 6 and EPEL 7 (similar to the
openssl101e package available for EPEL 5) and patch our specfile to be able to
work with that instead.

This is a task I'm not anxious to embark upon personally; there is too much
overhead in maintaining a fork of OpenSSL to make me comfortable.

How shall we proceed?



OK, I spent far too much of today attempting to solve this problem. I got fairly
far into it, but at this point I have run out of time to work on it for the near
future.

What I have been trying to do:

I decided that the most expedient approach for EPEL 7 right now would be to
attempt to build OpenSSL statically into Node.js. We cannot do that with the
copy that upstream carries due to certain patents, so I decided to see if I
could script up something that would pull the source of the OpenSSL package from
Fedora Rawhide, drop it into the Node.js source tree and allow us to build it.

This sounds simple in theory, but it turns out that it's going to require a fair
bit of mucking about with the gyp build that Node.js uses. I've made some
headway on it, 

[EPEL-devel] Re: nodejs update

[Stephen Gallagher]

On 08/22/2016 11:23 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 08/11/2016 07:43 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> On 08/11/2016 05:16 AM, Zuzana Svetlikova wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> As some of you may know, nodejs package that is present in
>>> EPEL is pretty outdated. The current v0.10 that we have will
>>> go EOL in October and npm (package manager) is already not
>>> maintained.
>>>
>>> Currently, upstreams' plan is to have two versions of Long
>>> Term Support (LTS) at once, one in active development and one
>>> in maintenance mode.
>>> Currently active is v4, which is switching to maintenance in
>>> April and v6 which is switching to LTS in October.
>>> This is also reason why we would like to skip v4, although
>>> both will get security updates. Nodejs v6 also comes with
>>> newer npm and v8 (which might best be bundled, as it is in
>>> Fedora and Software Collections) (v8 might concern ruby and
>>> database maintainers, but old v8 package still remains in
>>> the repo).
>>>
>>> There was also an idea to have both LTS versions in repo,
>>> but we're not quite sure, how we'd do it and if it's even a
>>> good idea.
>>>
>>> Also, another thing is, if it is worth of updating every year
>>> to new LTS or update only after the current one goes EOL.
>>> According to guidelines, I'd say it's the latter, but it's
>>> not exactly how node development works and some feedback from
>>> users on this would be nice, because I have none.
>>>
>>>
>>> tl;dr Need to update nodejs, but can't decide if v4 or v6,
>>> v4: will update sooner, shorter support (2018-04-01)
>>> v6: longer support (2019-04-01), *might* break more things,
>>> won't be in stable sooner than mid-October if everything
>>> goes well
>>
>> FYI, I think this tl;dr missed explaining why v6 won't be in stable until
>> mid-October. What Zuzana and I discussed on another list is that the Node.js 
>> v6
>> schedule has it going into LTS mode on the same day that 0.10.x reaches EOL.
>> However, v6 is already out and available. The major thing that changes at 
>> that
>> point is just that from then on, they commit to adding no more major features
>> (as I understand it). This is the best moment for us to switch over to it.
>>
>> However, in the meantime we will probably want to be carrying 6.x in
>> updates-testing for at least a month prior to declaring it stable (with
>> autokarma disabled) with wide announcements about the impending upgrade. This
>> will be safe to do since Node.js 6.x has already reached a point where no
>> backwards-incompatible changes are allowed in, so we can start the migration
>> process early.
>>
> 
> OK, as we stated before, we really need to get Node.js 6.x into the
> updates-testing repository soon. We mentioned that we wanted it to sit there 
> for
> at least a month before we cut over, and "at least a month" means "by next 
> week"
> since the cut over is planned for 2016-10-01.
> 
> I'm putting together a COPR right now as a first pass at this upgrade:
> 
> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/nodejs-sig/nodejs-epel/
> 
> I've run into the following blocker issues:
> 
> * We cannot jump to 6.x in EPEL 6 easily at this time, because upstream 
> strictly
> requires GCC 4.8 or later and we only have 4.4 in EPEL 6. It might be possible
> to resolve this with SCLs, but I am no expert there. Zuzana?
> 
> * Node.js 4.x and 6.x both *strictly* require functionality from OpenSSL 1.0.2
> and cannot run (or indeed build) against OpenSSL 1.0.1. Currently, both EPEL 6
> and EPEL 7 have 1.0.1 in their buildroots. I am not aware of any solution (SCL
> or otherwise) for linking EPEL to a newer version of OpenSSL.
> 
> The OpenSSL 1.0.2 problem is a significant one; we cannot build against the
> bundled copy of OpenSSL because it includes patented algorithms that are not
> acceptable for inclusion in Fedora. We also cannot trivially backport Fedora's
> OpenSSL 1.0.2 packages because EPEL forbids upgrading packages provided by the
> base RHEL/CentOS repositories.
> 
> 
> Right now, the only thing I can think of would be for someone to build a
> parallel-installable OpenSSL 1.0.2 package for EPEL 6 and EPEL 7 (similar to 
> the
> openssl101e package available for EPEL 5) and patch our specfile to be able to
> work with that instead.
> 
> This is a task I'm not anxious to embark upon personally; there is too much
> overhead in maintaining a fork of OpenSSL to make me comfortable.
> 
> How shall we proceed?
> 


OK, I spent far too much of today attempting to solve this problem. I got fairly
far into it, but at this point I have run out of time to work on it for the near
future.

What I have been trying to do:

I decided that the most expedient approach for EPEL 7 right now would be to
attempt to build OpenSSL statically into Node.js. We cannot do that with the
copy that upstream carries due to certain patents, so I decided to see if I
could script up something that would pull the source of the OpenSSL package from
Fedora Rawhide, drop it into 

[EPEL-devel] Re: nodejs update

[Rich Megginson]

On 08/11/2016 05:43 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:

On 08/11/2016 05:16 AM, Zuzana Svetlikova wrote:

Hi!

As some of you may know, nodejs package that is present in
EPEL is pretty outdated. The current v0.10 that we have will
go EOL in October and npm (package manager) is already not
maintained.

Currently, upstreams' plan is to have two versions of Long
Term Support (LTS) at once, one in active development and one
in maintenance mode.
Currently active is v4, which is switching to maintenance in
April and v6 which is switching to LTS in October.
This is also reason why we would like to skip v4, although
both will get security updates. Nodejs v6 also comes with
newer npm and v8 (which might best be bundled, as it is in
Fedora and Software Collections) (v8 might concern ruby and
database maintainers, but old v8 package still remains in
the repo).

There was also an idea to have both LTS versions in repo,
but we're not quite sure, how we'd do it and if it's even a
good idea.

Also, another thing is, if it is worth of updating every year
to new LTS or update only after the current one goes EOL.
According to guidelines, I'd say it's the latter, but it's
not exactly how node development works and some feedback from
users on this would be nice, because I have none.


tl;dr Need to update nodejs, but can't decide if v4 or v6,
v4: will update sooner, shorter support (2018-04-01)
v6: longer support (2019-04-01), *might* break more things,
 won't be in stable sooner than mid-October if everything
 goes well

FYI, I think this tl;dr missed explaining why v6 won't be in stable until
mid-October. What Zuzana and I discussed on another list is that the Node.js v6
schedule has it going into LTS mode on the same day that 0.10.x reaches EOL.
However, v6 is already out and available. The major thing that changes at that
point is just that from then on, they commit to adding no more major features
(as I understand it). This is the best moment for us to switch over to it.

However, in the meantime we will probably want to be carrying 6.x in
updates-testing for at least a month prior to declaring it stable (with
autokarma disabled) with wide announcements about the impending upgrade. This
will be safe to do since Node.js 6.x has already reached a point where no
backwards-incompatible changes are allowed in, so we can start the migration
process early.


How does EPEL deal with the fact that nodejs won't work with openssl 
1.0.1?  For CentOS we have a patch that allows nodejs 4.x to build with 
openssl 1.0.1 in EL7.  Are you using a similar patch?  Do you know if 
the same patch will work with nodejs 6.x?






Also need feedback from users.


I hope I didn't forget anything important.

Regards

Zuzka
Node.js SIG





___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org



___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: nodejs update

[Matthias Runge]

On 23/08/16 03:48, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Stephen Gallagher 
>> >
>> Let me (or open a rel-eng ticket) when you want a epel7-nodejs6 side
>> tag to build it into. Will make it easier so you don't need to deal
>> with a billion build overrides etc.
>>
> 
> I'm not sure that will be strictly necessary; we figured out during the 
> Fedora process that once we moved to the bundled NPM, we only had about a 
> dozen packages that actually needed a rebuild to support Node.js 6.x (just 
> the ones that build a native, archful module).
> 
> But yes, I'll make sure to let you know if we decide it needs a side-tag.


Nodejs 6 bundles openssl 1.0.2.h, where RHEL/CentOS have a much older
version. That hasn't been an issue in Fedora; For CentOS, there is a
build for Node.js 4 in cbs, including a patch to unbundle openssl and to
make it work with the way older lib.

Unless we have a comparable patch (if possible) for Node version 6,
maybe we should stick with version 4?

Matthias
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: nodejs update

[Peter Robinson]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Stephen Gallagher  wrote:
> On 08/11/2016 07:43 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> On 08/11/2016 05:16 AM, Zuzana Svetlikova wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> As some of you may know, nodejs package that is present in
>>> EPEL is pretty outdated. The current v0.10 that we have will
>>> go EOL in October and npm (package manager) is already not
>>> maintained.
>>>
>>> Currently, upstreams' plan is to have two versions of Long
>>> Term Support (LTS) at once, one in active development and one
>>> in maintenance mode.
>>> Currently active is v4, which is switching to maintenance in
>>> April and v6 which is switching to LTS in October.
>>> This is also reason why we would like to skip v4, although
>>> both will get security updates. Nodejs v6 also comes with
>>> newer npm and v8 (which might best be bundled, as it is in
>>> Fedora and Software Collections) (v8 might concern ruby and
>>> database maintainers, but old v8 package still remains in
>>> the repo).
>>>
>>> There was also an idea to have both LTS versions in repo,
>>> but we're not quite sure, how we'd do it and if it's even a
>>> good idea.
>>>
>>> Also, another thing is, if it is worth of updating every year
>>> to new LTS or update only after the current one goes EOL.
>>> According to guidelines, I'd say it's the latter, but it's
>>> not exactly how node development works and some feedback from
>>> users on this would be nice, because I have none.
>>>
>>>
>>> tl;dr Need to update nodejs, but can't decide if v4 or v6,
>>> v4: will update sooner, shorter support (2018-04-01)
>>> v6: longer support (2019-04-01), *might* break more things,
>>> won't be in stable sooner than mid-October if everything
>>> goes well
>>
>> FYI, I think this tl;dr missed explaining why v6 won't be in stable until
>> mid-October. What Zuzana and I discussed on another list is that the Node.js 
>> v6
>> schedule has it going into LTS mode on the same day that 0.10.x reaches EOL.
>> However, v6 is already out and available. The major thing that changes at 
>> that
>> point is just that from then on, they commit to adding no more major features
>> (as I understand it). This is the best moment for us to switch over to it.
>>
>> However, in the meantime we will probably want to be carrying 6.x in
>> updates-testing for at least a month prior to declaring it stable (with
>> autokarma disabled) with wide announcements about the impending upgrade. This
>> will be safe to do since Node.js 6.x has already reached a point where no
>> backwards-incompatible changes are allowed in, so we can start the migration
>> process early.
>>
>
> OK, as we stated before, we really need to get Node.js 6.x into the
> updates-testing repository soon. We mentioned that we wanted it to sit there 
> for
> at least a month before we cut over, and "at least a month" means "by next 
> week"
> since the cut over is planned for 2016-10-01.
>
> I'm putting together a COPR right now as a first pass at this upgrade:

Let me (or open a rel-eng ticket) when you want a epel7-nodejs6 side
tag to build it into. Will make it easier so you don't need to deal
with a billion build overrides etc.

Peter


> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/nodejs-sig/nodejs-epel/
>
> I've run into the following blocker issues:
>
> * We cannot jump to 6.x in EPEL 6 easily at this time, because upstream 
> strictly
> requires GCC 4.8 or later and we only have 4.4 in EPEL 6. It might be possible
> to resolve this with SCLs, but I am no expert there. Zuzana?
>
> * Node.js 4.x and 6.x both *strictly* require functionality from OpenSSL 1.0.2
> and cannot run (or indeed build) against OpenSSL 1.0.1. Currently, both EPEL 6
> and EPEL 7 have 1.0.1 in their buildroots. I am not aware of any solution (SCL
> or otherwise) for linking EPEL to a newer version of OpenSSL.
>
> The OpenSSL 1.0.2 problem is a significant one; we cannot build against the
> bundled copy of OpenSSL because it includes patented algorithms that are not
> acceptable for inclusion in Fedora. We also cannot trivially backport Fedora's
> OpenSSL 1.0.2 packages because EPEL forbids upgrading packages provided by the
> base RHEL/CentOS repositories.
>
>
> Right now, the only thing I can think of would be for someone to build a
> parallel-installable OpenSSL 1.0.2 package for EPEL 6 and EPEL 7 (similar to 
> the
> openssl101e package available for EPEL 5) and patch our specfile to be able to
> work with that instead.
>
> This is a task I'm not anxious to embark upon personally; there is too much
> overhead in maintaining a fork of OpenSSL to make me comfortable.
>
> How shall we proceed?
>
>
> ___
> epel-devel mailing list
> epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: nodejs update

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 12 August 2016 at 04:04, Zuzana Svetlikova <zsvet...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Unless we decide to go the "both lts versions" path, I'd update nodejs.
> I see no point in having packages, that are unmaintained by upstream, in
> the repo.
>

No problem. I am just wanting to get the correct picture of the plan
in my head .

> - Original Message -
> From: "Stephen John Smoogen" <smo...@gmail.com>
> To: "EPEL Development List" <epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Cc: "Zuzana Svetlikova" <zsvet...@redhat.com>, epel-devel-l...@redhat.com, 
> epel-de...@fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 6:11:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [EPEL-devel] Re: nodejs update
>
> On 11 August 2016 at 07:43, Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>> tl;dr Need to update nodejs, but can't decide if v4 or v6,
>>> v4: will update sooner, shorter support (2018-04-01)
>>> v6: longer support (2019-04-01), *might* break more things,
>>> won't be in stable sooner than mid-October if everything
>>> goes well
>>
>> FYI, I think this tl;dr missed explaining why v6 won't be in stable until
>> mid-October. What Zuzana and I discussed on another list is that the Node.js 
>> v6
>> schedule has it going into LTS mode on the same day that 0.10.x reaches EOL.
>> However, v6 is already out and available. The major thing that changes at 
>> that
>> point is just that from then on, they commit to adding no more major features
>> (as I understand it). This is the best moment for us to switch over to it.
>>
>> However, in the meantime we will probably want to be carrying 6.x in
>> updates-testing for at least a month prior to declaring it stable (with
>> autokarma disabled) with wide announcements about the impending upgrade. This
>> will be safe to do since Node.js 6.x has already reached a point where no
>> backwards-incompatible changes are allowed in, so we can start the migration
>> process early.
>>
>
> How will the packages be named? Are we doing this as nodejs6 or nodejs?
>
> --
> Stephen J Smoogen.



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: nodejs update

[Zuzana Svetlikova]

Unless we decide to go the "both lts versions" path, I'd update nodejs.
I see no point in having packages, that are unmaintained by upstream, in 
the repo.

- Original Message -
From: "Stephen John Smoogen" <smo...@gmail.com>
To: "EPEL Development List" <epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Cc: "Zuzana Svetlikova" <zsvet...@redhat.com>, epel-devel-l...@redhat.com, 
epel-de...@fedoraproject.org
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 6:11:14 PM
Subject: Re: [EPEL-devel] Re: nodejs update

On 11 August 2016 at 07:43, Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com> wrote:

>> tl;dr Need to update nodejs, but can't decide if v4 or v6,
>> v4: will update sooner, shorter support (2018-04-01)
>> v6: longer support (2019-04-01), *might* break more things,
>> won't be in stable sooner than mid-October if everything
>> goes well
>
> FYI, I think this tl;dr missed explaining why v6 won't be in stable until
> mid-October. What Zuzana and I discussed on another list is that the Node.js 
> v6
> schedule has it going into LTS mode on the same day that 0.10.x reaches EOL.
> However, v6 is already out and available. The major thing that changes at that
> point is just that from then on, they commit to adding no more major features
> (as I understand it). This is the best moment for us to switch over to it.
>
> However, in the meantime we will probably want to be carrying 6.x in
> updates-testing for at least a month prior to declaring it stable (with
> autokarma disabled) with wide announcements about the impending upgrade. This
> will be safe to do since Node.js 6.x has already reached a point where no
> backwards-incompatible changes are allowed in, so we can start the migration
> process early.
>

How will the packages be named? Are we doing this as nodejs6 or nodejs?

-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: nodejs update

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 11 August 2016 at 07:43, Stephen Gallagher  wrote:

>> tl;dr Need to update nodejs, but can't decide if v4 or v6,
>> v4: will update sooner, shorter support (2018-04-01)
>> v6: longer support (2019-04-01), *might* break more things,
>> won't be in stable sooner than mid-October if everything
>> goes well
>
> FYI, I think this tl;dr missed explaining why v6 won't be in stable until
> mid-October. What Zuzana and I discussed on another list is that the Node.js 
> v6
> schedule has it going into LTS mode on the same day that 0.10.x reaches EOL.
> However, v6 is already out and available. The major thing that changes at that
> point is just that from then on, they commit to adding no more major features
> (as I understand it). This is the best moment for us to switch over to it.
>
> However, in the meantime we will probably want to be carrying 6.x in
> updates-testing for at least a month prior to declaring it stable (with
> autokarma disabled) with wide announcements about the impending upgrade. This
> will be safe to do since Node.js 6.x has already reached a point where no
> backwards-incompatible changes are allowed in, so we can start the migration
> process early.
>

How will the packages be named? Are we doing this as nodejs6 or nodejs?

-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: nodejs update

[Stephen Gallagher]

On 08/11/2016 05:16 AM, Zuzana Svetlikova wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> As some of you may know, nodejs package that is present in
> EPEL is pretty outdated. The current v0.10 that we have will
> go EOL in October and npm (package manager) is already not
> maintained.
> 
> Currently, upstreams' plan is to have two versions of Long
> Term Support (LTS) at once, one in active development and one
> in maintenance mode.
> Currently active is v4, which is switching to maintenance in
> April and v6 which is switching to LTS in October.
> This is also reason why we would like to skip v4, although
> both will get security updates. Nodejs v6 also comes with
> newer npm and v8 (which might best be bundled, as it is in
> Fedora and Software Collections) (v8 might concern ruby and
> database maintainers, but old v8 package still remains in
> the repo).
> 
> There was also an idea to have both LTS versions in repo,
> but we're not quite sure, how we'd do it and if it's even a
> good idea.
> 
> Also, another thing is, if it is worth of updating every year
> to new LTS or update only after the current one goes EOL.
> According to guidelines, I'd say it's the latter, but it's
> not exactly how node development works and some feedback from
> users on this would be nice, because I have none.
> 
> 
> tl;dr Need to update nodejs, but can't decide if v4 or v6,
> v4: will update sooner, shorter support (2018-04-01)
> v6: longer support (2019-04-01), *might* break more things,
> won't be in stable sooner than mid-October if everything
> goes well

FYI, I think this tl;dr missed explaining why v6 won't be in stable until
mid-October. What Zuzana and I discussed on another list is that the Node.js v6
schedule has it going into LTS mode on the same day that 0.10.x reaches EOL.
However, v6 is already out and available. The major thing that changes at that
point is just that from then on, they commit to adding no more major features
(as I understand it). This is the best moment for us to switch over to it.

However, in the meantime we will probably want to be carrying 6.x in
updates-testing for at least a month prior to declaring it stable (with
autokarma disabled) with wide announcements about the impending upgrade. This
will be safe to do since Node.js 6.x has already reached a point where no
backwards-incompatible changes are allowed in, so we can start the migration
process early.


> Also need feedback from users.
> 
> 
> I hope I didn't forget anything important.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Zuzka
> Node.js SIG
> 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org