On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 3:35 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 9:20 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 3:16 PM Stephen Gallagher
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I have now submitted
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2150093 and
> > >
On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 9:20 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 3:16 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >
> > I have now submitted
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2150093 and
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2150094 for the
> >
On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 3:16 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> I have now submitted
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2150093 and
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2150094 for the
> `nodejs16` and `nodejs18` packages for Fedora.
>
> You can test them with
I have now submitted
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2150093 and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2150094 for the
`nodejs16` and `nodejs18` packages for Fedora.
You can test them with `dnf copr enable sgallagh/nodejs-alternatives`.
The final approach I
I have not used nodejs for development in quite a while so cannot
respond from an involved user perspective. Given that context, I
concur with Dan's reasoning and choices.
On a more meta note, Fedora has at least 3 mechanisms to provide
multiple versions of some component for a given release -
Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 9:04 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 09, 2022 at 10:58:58PM +0200, Dan Čermák wrote:
> > > 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
Dne 07. 10. 22 v 20:54 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 2:29 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NodejsRepackaging
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
On Sun, Oct 09, 2022 at 10:58:58PM +0200, Dan Čermák wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Stephen Gallagher writes:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 2:29 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> > *snip*
>
> > When a Node.js release goes out of support, we have a question to
> > answer: do we Obsolete it with a newer
Hi Stephen,
Stephen Gallagher writes:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 2:29 PM Ben Cotton 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
On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 2:29 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NodejsRepackaging
>
> This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
> process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
> community feedback. This proposal will only be
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 7:00 AM Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 1:14 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>
>> As I'm implementing this, I'm realizing that it probably only makes
>> sense to have the default version of Node.js on each Fedora release
>> provide the
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 1:14 AM Stephen Gallagher
wrote:
> As I'm implementing this, I'm realizing that it probably only makes
> sense to have the default version of Node.js on each Fedora release
> provide the unversioned-command. Otherwise it becomes really hard to
> ensure that the RPM macros
On 15. 09. 22 19:14, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
As I'm implementing this, I'm realizing that it probably only makes
sense to have the default version of Node.js on each Fedora release
provide the unversioned-command. Otherwise it becomes really hard to
ensure that the RPM macros like
As I'm implementing this, I'm realizing that it probably only makes
sense to have the default version of Node.js on each Fedora release
provide the unversioned-command. Otherwise it becomes really hard to
ensure that the RPM macros like %{nodejs_sitelib} refer to the correct
location. So I think
I've updated https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NodejsRepackaging
with the results of this discussion. I'll go the
`nodejs-$MAJOR-unversioned-command` route.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 3:34 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
...
> I don't like the EOL-Obsolte within one Fedora release. Things like this
> should
> only change on release boundary. Other than that it sounds good, but consider
> that packages requiring /usr/bin/node might pick any of the versions we
On 12. 09. 22 20:56, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 3:30 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 07. 09. 22 19:30, Neal Gompa wrote:
That said, I don't think alternatives makes sense for this case.
Me neither. We used this for /usr/bin/python3 in RHEL 8 and it's very bad UX
and requires
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 3:30 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 07. 09. 22 19:30, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > That said, I don't think alternatives makes sense for this case.
>
> Me neither. We used this for /usr/bin/python3 in RHEL 8 and it's very bad UX
> and requires custom hacks in scriptlets even in
Dne 07. 09. 22 v 19:30 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
The openSUSE folks wrote an alternative alternatives implementation
called libalternatives that is likely to be rpm-ostree compatible. It
works differently from regular alternatives, and I've got a package in
copr for it[1].
It might be worth
Dne 07. 09. 22 v 19:41 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 1:32 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 12:45 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 9:03 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 2:49 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
On 06/09/2022
* Stephen Gallagher:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 1:36 PM Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden
> wrote:
>
>> But what if $package a.b only supports node 16 and $package x.y only
>> supports node 20. Looking at /usr/lib/node_modules/npm/node_modules I
>> don't see any version numbers in directories so they
On 07. 09. 22 19:30, Neal Gompa wrote:
That said, I don't think alternatives makes sense for this case.
Me neither. We used this for /usr/bin/python3 in RHEL 8 and it's very bad UX
and requires custom hacks in scriptlets even in RHEL 9 to undo it. It's ugly
and hard to get rid of.
See
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 1:56 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 1:41 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 1:32 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 12:45 PM Stephen Gallagher
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 9:03 AM Neal
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 1:41 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 1:32 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 12:45 PM Stephen Gallagher
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 9:03 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 2:49 AM Vitaly
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 1:36 PM Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden
wrote:
> But what if $package a.b only supports node 16 and $package x.y only
> supports node 20. Looking at /usr/lib/node_modules/npm/node_modules I
> don't see any version numbers in directories so they can't be
> coinstalled. Does it
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 1:32 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 12:45 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 9:03 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 2:49 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 06/09/2022 20:28, Ben
On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 12:55, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 06. 09. 22 v 20:28 Ben Cotton napsal(a):
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NodejsRepackaging
> >
> > This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
> > process, proposals are publicly announced in order to
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 12:31:27PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 7:07 PM Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden
wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 02:28:39PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
>== Benefit to Fedora ==
>=== Packager Benefits ===
>* No more modules to maintain.
>* Availability
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 12:45 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 9:03 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 2:49 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 06/09/2022 20:28, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > > We will be creating the packages nodejs-16,
Dne 06. 09. 22 v 20:28 Ben Cotton napsal(a):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NodejsRepackaging
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 9:03 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 2:49 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> wrote:
> >
> > On 06/09/2022 20:28, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > We will be creating the packages nodejs-16, nodejs-18 and (in April)
> > > nodejs-20. These packages will be
On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 7:07 PM Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 02:28:39PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >== Benefit to Fedora ==
> >=== Packager Benefits ===
> >* No more modules to maintain.
> >* Availability of multiple Node.js versions in the buildroot means
> >that
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 2:49 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 06/09/2022 20:28, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > We will be creating the packages nodejs-16, nodejs-18 and (in April)
> > nodejs-20. These packages will be parallel-installable (with the
> > exception of the -devel subpackages) and
On 06/09/2022 20:28, Ben Cotton wrote:
We will be creating the packages nodejs-16, nodejs-18 and (in April)
nodejs-20. These packages will be parallel-installable (with the
exception of the -devel subpackages) and provide
`/usr/bin/node-$MAJOR`. We will also take advantage of the
`alternatives`
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 02:28:39PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
== Benefit to Fedora ==
=== Packager Benefits ===
* No more modules to maintain.
* Availability of multiple Node.js versions in the buildroot means
that other `nodejs-*` packages can test against multiple supported
options.
== Scope ==
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NodejsRepackaging
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
by the Fedora Engineering Steering
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NodejsRepackaging
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
by the Fedora Engineering Steering
37 matches
Mail list logo
