OK folks, it's Bad Decision Time.
Today, Node.js 6.0 was released. This is a significant ABI-breaking release, which means there is no guarantee that existing modules will work with it at all.[1]
Better still, Node.js 5.x is only going to be supported until sometime this summer, because they're aiming for the 6.x branch to become the new LTS in October[2]. This puts us in quite a bind.
Fedora disallows major ABI changes in a stable release, so if Fedora 24 Final ships with Node.js 5.x, we will be stuck with maintaining it until Fedora 24 EOL (which is probably going to mean until approximately June 2017, or almost a full year after upstream drops support). This means manually backporting any security issues that come up without the benefit of a new version to rebase to and with an increasing likelihood of the patches diverging from upstream.
On the flip side, the major ABI break is hitting us post-Beta Freeze for Fedora 24, which is a really terrible time to be switching to a new major version of a language runtime (particularly since we don't actually know if any of the other packages on the system will work with it at all).
We don't have any particularly good options here. A downgrade back to 4.x (which will be supported until at least April 2018, well past F24 EOL) would be very difficult at this point, since node modules may have updated to newer, incompatible versions.
Furthermore, this came at a time where I was planning to write to the nodejs list and let people know that due to my changing work responsibilities, I'm not going to be able to be the primary maintainer of the main package any longer. (I'd be able to swing the occasional minor- or point-release update, but wrangling a major release won't be possible.)
I realize this is inopportune, but it's best if we figure out *immediately* how we're going to handle this.
Options: 1) Downgrade back to 4.x, downgrading or dropping any modules in the collection that don't run on that LTS version. 2) Stick with 5.x for the life of Fedora 24, handling security backports ourselves once it hits EOL this summer. 3) Upgrade to 6.x, fixing or dropping any modules in the collection that don't run on it yet.
I'll stick around to help with this major effort (since it's partly my fault we're in this mess; I didn't realize that the release schedule for 5.x was so poorly aligned with Fedora 24), but after that I'm going to need someone else to step up and handle the primary maintenance.
I don't like any of the choices, but I'm going to suggest that option 3) may be our best choice if we can manage it; we will want to be doing the same work for Fedora 25/Rawhide anyway, so it's not wasted effort. Also, a lot of the node modules in Fedora are only there because originally we needed them as dependencies for npm. Since we recently switched to carrying the embedded npm (and its rat's-nest of dependencies) inside the main nodejs package, we can probably get away with breakage in a lot of the modules in the collection.
We may only need to focus in the short term on those packages that are required by other parts of the Fedora Project (like nodejs-less, which is consumed in the build process for many web apps).
Option 2) is the path of least resistance in the immediate short-term, but once we run up against the upstream EOL, the maintenance burden could be prohibitive. In theory, we could petition FESCo for permission to break ABI in the stable release, but I wouldn't recommend it (and would probably be voting against it were it to come from anywhere else; I'd abstain in this case due to conflict of interest). Given that we know about the potential risk in advance, I doubt we'd see much sympathy either. So we should realistically assume that if we choose this option, someone is going to need to maintain the security backports (and it will not be me, sorry).
As for Option 1)? I think someone with more knowledge of the individual modules in Fedora (Tom Hughes? Jared Smith?) would need to figure out how many modules would be broken if we downgraded. If it's sufficiently small, I suppose we could epoch-bump nodejs and its virtual npm Provides: and go that route. I don't love that we will effectively been playing yo-yo with the version in F24, but it would be a solution...
Thoughts, other ideas? Please skip the rotten fruit; I'm on a diet.
[1] https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md#2016-04-26-version-6... [2] https://github.com/nodejs/LTS#lts_schedule
On 27/04/16 03:00, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
As for Option 1)? I think someone with more knowledge of the individual modules in Fedora (Tom Hughes? Jared Smith?) would need to figure out how many modules would be broken if we downgraded. If it's sufficiently small, I suppose we could epoch-bump nodejs and its virtual npm Provides: and go that route. I don't love that we will effectively been playing yo-yo with the version in F24, but it would be a solution...
Off the top of my head I'm not aware of anything that requires 5.x and for the most part I think people try to support at least 4.x and 5.x at the moment, and often earlier versions as well.
Tom
On 04/27/2016 04:19 AM, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 27/04/16 03:00, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
As for Option 1)? I think someone with more knowledge of the individual modules in Fedora (Tom Hughes? Jared Smith?) would need to figure out how many modules would be broken if we downgraded. If it's sufficiently small, I suppose we could epoch-bump nodejs and its virtual npm Provides: and go that route. I don't love that we will effectively been playing yo-yo with the version in F24, but it would be a solution...
Off the top of my head I'm not aware of anything that requires 5.x and for the most part I think people try to support at least 4.x and 5.x at the moment, and often earlier versions as well.
Tom
OK, I did some repoquery magic just now and came up with (unique-only):
nodejs(engine) nodejs(engine) >= 0.1 nodejs(engine) >= 0.10 nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.12 nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.15 nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.3 nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.36 nodejs(engine) >= 0.1.103 nodejs(engine) >= 0.12.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.1.90 nodejs(engine) > 0.1.90 nodejs(engine) >= 0.2.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.2.0-0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.2.4 nodejs(engine) >= 0.2.5 nodejs(engine) >= 0.3.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.3.1 nodejs(engine) >= 0.3.6 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4. nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.1 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.2 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.7 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.9 nodejs(engine) >= 0.6 nodejs(engine) >= 0.6.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.6.19 nodejs(engine) >= 0.6.3 nodejs(engine) >= 0.6.6 nodejs(engine) >= 0.8 nodejs(engine) >= 0.8. nodejs(engine) >= 0.8.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.8.19 nodejs(engine) >= 0.9.0 nodejs(engine) >= 4 nodejs(engine) >= 4.0.0
So according to this, we have nothing in the package collection that is known to require only 5.x or later. So that's a point in favor of the 4.x downgrade approach.
I don't love the idea of regressing the versions post-Beta, but it's starting to look like the least-risky approach. We really have no idea what is going to be broken by 6.0 and I don't want to stick some poor volunteer with maintaining backports of a dead upstream release.
Hey guys,
Long time lurker, who wants to try and get more involved with Stephen's shifting responsibilities. Is there a "getting started" or "hey new guy don't E-mail the mailing list" approach to contributing to this? I've heard Stephen refer to a COPR every now and then -- I'm aware of the COPR at [1] which I forked into my own COPR, and then also the wiki [2] with basic information on actually using Node.JS in Fedora. The packaging Node.JS page [3] looks severely outdated, since we are now no longer attempting to RPM package each individual NPM dependency and instead using that built in process? (That was a question)
The other part I'm confused on is that the COPR shows the build was triggered by a SRPM that was uploaded [4], but then also refers to a git repository at [5]
I wanted to "cut my teeth" on trying to configure the COPR to do a Fedora 23 build, since I'm still on Fedora 23. How would I go about doing that? As I said I forked the COPR and activated Fedora 23 as an option, would I need to upload my own SRPM based on the git repository, or should I be setting it up to pull automagically from elsewhere?
[1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/groups/g/nodejs-sig/coprs/ [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Node.js [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Node.js [4] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/nodejs-sig/nodejs-lts/build/181534...
[5] http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/@nodejs-sig/nodejs-lts/nodejs...
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 8:38 AM Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/27/2016 04:19 AM, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 27/04/16 03:00, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
As for Option 1)? I think someone with more knowledge of the individual
modules
in Fedora (Tom Hughes? Jared Smith?) would need to figure out how many
modules
would be broken if we downgraded. If it's sufficiently small, I suppose
we could
epoch-bump nodejs and its virtual npm Provides: and go that route. I
don't love
that we will effectively been playing yo-yo with the version in F24,
but it
would be a solution...
Off the top of my head I'm not aware of anything that requires 5.x and
for the
most part I think people try to support at least 4.x and 5.x at the
moment, and
often earlier versions as well.
Tom
OK, I did some repoquery magic just now and came up with (unique-only):
nodejs(engine) nodejs(engine) >= 0.1 nodejs(engine) >= 0.10 nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.12 nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.15 nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.3 nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.36 nodejs(engine) >= 0.1.103 nodejs(engine) >= 0.12.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.1.90 nodejs(engine) > 0.1.90 nodejs(engine) >= 0.2.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.2.0-0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.2.4 nodejs(engine) >= 0.2.5 nodejs(engine) >= 0.3.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.3.1 nodejs(engine) >= 0.3.6 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4. nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.1 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.2 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.7 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.9 nodejs(engine) >= 0.6 nodejs(engine) >= 0.6.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.6.19 nodejs(engine) >= 0.6.3 nodejs(engine) >= 0.6.6 nodejs(engine) >= 0.8 nodejs(engine) >= 0.8. nodejs(engine) >= 0.8.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.8.19 nodejs(engine) >= 0.9.0 nodejs(engine) >= 4 nodejs(engine) >= 4.0.0
So according to this, we have nothing in the package collection that is known to require only 5.x or later. So that's a point in favor of the 4.x downgrade approach.
I don't love the idea of regressing the versions post-Beta, but it's starting to look like the least-risky approach. We really have no idea what is going to be broken by 6.0 and I don't want to stick some poor volunteer with maintaining backports of a dead upstream release.
nodejs mailing list nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 05/02/2016 12:43 PM, Robert Van Voorhees wrote:
Hey guys,
Long time lurker, who wants to try and get more involved with Stephen's shifting responsibilities. Is there a "getting started" or "hey new guy don't E-mail the mailing list" approach to contributing to this? I've heard Stephen refer to a COPR every now and then -- I'm aware of the COPR at [1] which I forked into my own COPR, and then also the wiki [2] with basic information on actually using Node.JS in Fedora. The packaging Node.JS page [3] looks severely outdated, since we are now no longer attempting to RPM package each individual NPM dependency and instead using that built in process? (That was a question)
Why do you think it's outdated? We have a single special case for the embedded npm in nodejs because it was necessary to enable us to move quickly when nodejs updates land. (npm keeps getting random additional dependencies all the time and trying to maintain its monstrous chain separately to get a nodejs security fix out the door was proving impossible).
Other Node.js modules should absolutely continue to follow those packaging guidelines.
The other part I'm confused on is that the COPR shows the build was triggered by a SRPM that was uploaded [4], but then also refers to a git repository at [5]
That git repository is pretty much an internal implementation detail of COPR. As it is, the existing COPR repositories are pretty out of date (they were more-or-less abandoned once we landed the updated Node versions in F24 and Rawhide).
However, we should probably look at prepping the Node.js 6.x upgrade through COPR before we push it to Rawhide, since we know that there are backwards-compatibility issues.
I wanted to "cut my teeth" on trying to configure the COPR to do a Fedora 23 build, since I'm still on Fedora 23. How would I go about doing that? As I said I forked the COPR and activated Fedora 23 as an option, would I need to upload my own SRPM based on the git repository, or should I be setting it up to pull automagically from elsewhere?
I'm not aware of any reason Fedora 23 couldn't just pull in the SRPM of the latest builds from Koji (since most of what it needs is bundled in). You'll probably need to build `libuv` first, then try to build nodejs and see what happens.
[1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/groups/g/nodejs-sig/coprs/ https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/groups/g/nodejs-sig/coprs/ [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Node.js [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Node.js [4] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/nodejs-sig/nodejs-lts/build/181534... [5] http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/@nodejs-sig/nodejs-lts/nodejs...
Also, there are many modules in Fedora that were added specifically to support the 'npm' package which is now bundled with the nodejs package: We should probably take an inventory of them and figure out which ones are worth continuing to support as distribution packages (meaning they're valuable to something else we want to distribute, like nodejs-less or Visual Studio Code, etc.) or if we should continue retiring some of them so as not to need to continue maintaining them.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 8:38 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@redhat.com mailto:sgallagh@redhat.com> wrote:
On 04/27/2016 04:19 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 27/04/16 03:00, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >> As for Option 1)? I think someone with more knowledge of the individual modules >> in Fedora (Tom Hughes? Jared Smith?) would need to figure out how many modules >> would be broken if we downgraded. If it's sufficiently small, I suppose we could >> epoch-bump nodejs and its virtual npm Provides: and go that route. I don't love >> that we will effectively been playing yo-yo with the version in F24, but it >> would be a solution... > > Off the top of my head I'm not aware of anything that requires 5.x and for the > most part I think people try to support at least 4.x and 5.x at the moment, and > often earlier versions as well. > > Tom > OK, I did some repoquery magic just now and came up with (unique-only): nodejs(engine) nodejs(engine) >= 0.1 nodejs(engine) >= 0.10 nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.12 nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.15 nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.3 nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.36 nodejs(engine) >= 0.1.103 nodejs(engine) >= 0.12.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.1.90 nodejs(engine) > 0.1.90 nodejs(engine) >= 0.2.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.2.0-0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.2.4 nodejs(engine) >= 0.2.5 nodejs(engine) >= 0.3.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.3.1 nodejs(engine) >= 0.3.6 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4. nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.1 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.2 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.7 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.9 nodejs(engine) >= 0.6 nodejs(engine) >= 0.6.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.6.19 nodejs(engine) >= 0.6.3 nodejs(engine) >= 0.6.6 nodejs(engine) >= 0.8 nodejs(engine) >= 0.8. nodejs(engine) >= 0.8.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.8.19 nodejs(engine) >= 0.9.0 nodejs(engine) >= 4 nodejs(engine) >= 4.0.0 So according to this, we have nothing in the package collection that is known to require only 5.x or later. So that's a point in favor of the 4.x downgrade approach. I don't love the idea of regressing the versions post-Beta, but it's starting to look like the least-risky approach. We really have no idea what is going to be broken by 6.0 and I don't want to stick some poor volunteer with maintaining backports of a dead upstream release. _______________________________________________ nodejs mailing list nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org
nodejs mailing list nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for the fast response time. I did end up pulling the SRPM from the latest build on Kodi [1], but before that I was also trying to use Mock SCM. There's apparently an issue going on with that [2] at the moment -- would that eventually be the preferred way, since it can pull straight from a git repo?
When building Node for Fedora 23 I think I encountered the error you were alluding to with `libuv` [3]:
``` ../src/node_os.cc: In function 'void node::os::GetHomeDirectory(const v8::FunctionCallbackInfov8::Value&)': ../src/node_os.cc:279:42: error: 'uv_os_homedir' was not declared in this scope const int err = uv_os_homedir(buf, &len); ^ ../src/node_os.cc:282:54: error: return-statement with a value, in function returning 'void' [-fpermissive] return env->ThrowUVException(err, "uv_os_homedir"); ^ node.target.mk:143: recipe for target '/builddir/build/BUILD/node-v4.4.3/out/Debug/obj.target/node/src/node_os.o' failed ``` Would I need to update the nodejs.spec file for Fedora 23 to reflect a newer version, or different version in order to get around that?
[1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/voor/nodejs-lts/build/182807/ [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1312820 [3] https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/voor/nodejs-lts/fedora-23-x8...
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:37 PM Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
On 05/02/2016 12:43 PM, Robert Van Voorhees wrote:
Hey guys,
Long time lurker, who wants to try and get more involved with Stephen's
shifting
responsibilities. Is there a "getting started" or "hey new guy don't
E-mail the
mailing list" approach to contributing to this? I've heard Stephen
refer to a
COPR every now and then -- I'm aware of the COPR at [1] which I forked
into my
own COPR, and then also the wiki [2] with basic information on actually
using
Node.JS in Fedora. The packaging Node.JS page [3] looks severely
outdated,
since we are now no longer attempting to RPM package each individual NPM dependency and instead using that built in process? (That was a
question)
Why do you think it's outdated? We have a single special case for the embedded npm in nodejs because it was necessary to enable us to move quickly when nodejs updates land. (npm keeps getting random additional dependencies all the time and trying to maintain its monstrous chain separately to get a nodejs security fix out the door was proving impossible).
Other Node.js modules should absolutely continue to follow those packaging guidelines.
The other part I'm confused on is that the COPR shows the build was
triggered by
a SRPM that was uploaded [4], but then also refers to a git repository
at [5]
That git repository is pretty much an internal implementation detail of COPR. As it is, the existing COPR repositories are pretty out of date (they were more-or-less abandoned once we landed the updated Node versions in F24 and Rawhide).
However, we should probably look at prepping the Node.js 6.x upgrade through COPR before we push it to Rawhide, since we know that there are backwards-compatibility issues.
I wanted to "cut my teeth" on trying to configure the COPR to do a
Fedora 23
build, since I'm still on Fedora 23. How would I go about doing that?
As I
said I forked the COPR and activated Fedora 23 as an option, would I
need to
upload my own SRPM based on the git repository, or should I be setting
it up to
pull automagically from elsewhere?
I'm not aware of any reason Fedora 23 couldn't just pull in the SRPM of the latest builds from Koji (since most of what it needs is bundled in). You'll probably need to build `libuv` first, then try to build nodejs and see what happens.
[1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/groups/g/nodejs-sig/coprs/ https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/groups/g/nodejs-sig/coprs/ [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Node.js [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Node.js [4]
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/nodejs-sig/nodejs-lts/build/181534...
[5]
http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/@nodejs-sig/nodejs-lts/nodejs...
Also, there are many modules in Fedora that were added specifically to support the 'npm' package which is now bundled with the nodejs package: We should probably take an inventory of them and figure out which ones are worth continuing to support as distribution packages (meaning they're valuable to something else we want to distribute, like nodejs-less or Visual Studio Code, etc.) or if we should continue retiring some of them so as not to need to continue maintaining them.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 8:38 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@redhat.com mailto:sgallagh@redhat.com> wrote:
On 04/27/2016 04:19 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 27/04/16 03:00, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >> As for Option 1)? I think someone with more knowledge of theindividual
modules >> in Fedora (Tom Hughes? Jared Smith?) would need to figure out howmany
modules >> would be broken if we downgraded. If it's sufficiently small, Isuppose
we could >> epoch-bump nodejs and its virtual npm Provides: and go thatroute. I
don't love >> that we will effectively been playing yo-yo with the version inF24, but it
>> would be a solution... > > Off the top of my head I'm not aware of anything that requires 5.xand for the
> most part I think people try to support at least 4.x and 5.x at the moment, and > often earlier versions as well. > > Tom > OK, I did some repoquery magic just now and came up with(unique-only):
nodejs(engine) nodejs(engine) >= 0.1 nodejs(engine) >= 0.10 nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.12 nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.15 nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.3 nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.36 nodejs(engine) >= 0.1.103 nodejs(engine) >= 0.12.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.1.90 nodejs(engine) > 0.1.90 nodejs(engine) >= 0.2.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.2.0-0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.2.4 nodejs(engine) >= 0.2.5 nodejs(engine) >= 0.3.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.3.1 nodejs(engine) >= 0.3.6 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4. nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.1 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.2 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.7 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.9 nodejs(engine) >= 0.6 nodejs(engine) >= 0.6.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.6.19 nodejs(engine) >= 0.6.3 nodejs(engine) >= 0.6.6 nodejs(engine) >= 0.8 nodejs(engine) >= 0.8. nodejs(engine) >= 0.8.0 nodejs(engine) >= 0.8.19 nodejs(engine) >= 0.9.0 nodejs(engine) >= 4 nodejs(engine) >= 4.0.0 So according to this, we have nothing in the package collection thatis known to
require only 5.x or later. So that's a point in favor of the 4.xdowngrade
approach. I don't love the idea of regressing the versions post-Beta, but it'sstarting to
look like the least-risky approach. We really have no idea what isgoing to be
broken by 6.0 and I don't want to stick some poor volunteer withmaintaining
backports of a dead upstream release. _______________________________________________ nodejs mailing list nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org>
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org
nodejs mailing list nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org
nodejs mailing list nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 02/05/16 19:31, Robert Van Voorhees wrote:
When building Node for Fedora 23 I think I encountered the error you were alluding to with `libuv` [3]:
Yes you will need to build a newer libuv package first.
Tom
Thanks guys, I have Node.js v4.4.3 working under Fedora 23 now. Definitely a fun whirlwind tour through the various Fedora build systems, would have been easier if mock-scm was working!
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:41 PM Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu wrote:
On 02/05/16 19:31, Robert Van Voorhees wrote:
When building Node for Fedora 23 I think I encountered the error you were alluding to with `libuv` [3]:
Yes you will need to build a newer libuv package first.
Tom
-- Tom Hughes (tom@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ _______________________________________________ nodejs mailing list nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org
Hey guys, do we have a COPR or capability to run Node 6 on Fedora 24 at the moment? I realize we're still pushing for Node v4, but since we were definitely building it at one point, do we have a semi-official means to upgrade to 6?
-R
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 4:35 PM Robert Van Voorhees rcvanvo@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks guys, I have Node.js v4.4.3 working under Fedora 23 now. Definitely a fun whirlwind tour through the various Fedora build systems, would have been easier if mock-scm was working!
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:41 PM Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu wrote:
On 02/05/16 19:31, Robert Van Voorhees wrote:
When building Node for Fedora 23 I think I encountered the error you were alluding to with `libuv` [3]:
Yes you will need to build a newer libuv package first.
Tom
-- Tom Hughes (tom@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ _______________________________________________ nodejs mailing list nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 07/18/2016 04:05 PM, Robert Van Voorhees wrote:
Hey guys, do we have a COPR or capability to run Node 6 on Fedora 24 at the moment? I realize we're still pushing for Node v4, but since we were definitely building it at one point, do we have a semi-official means to upgrade to 6?
It's built and functional in Rawhide right now, so you should be able to pull it from there...
Awesome,
In the event anyone else is interested:
sudo dnf install -y fedora-repos-rawhide && sudo dnf install -y --best --allowerasing --enablerepo rawhide nodejs
Appreciate the fast response time as well!
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 4:16 PM Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/18/2016 04:05 PM, Robert Van Voorhees wrote:
Hey guys, do we have a COPR or capability to run Node 6 on Fedora 24 at
the
moment? I realize we're still pushing for Node v4, but since we were
definitely
building it at one point, do we have a semi-official means to upgrade to
6?
It's built and functional in Rawhide right now, so you should be able to pull it from there...
nodejs mailing list nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sorry for mass, that last one has a typo:
Correct command is:
sudo dnf install -y fedora-repos-rawhide && sudo dnf install -y --best --allowerasing --enablerepo rawhide nodejs libuv
You need to upgrade libuv as well, otherwise you'll get:
node: symbol lookup error: node: undefined symbol: uv_fs_realpath
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 4:27 PM Robert Van Voorhees rcvanvo@gmail.com wrote:
Awesome,
In the event anyone else is interested:
sudo dnf install -y fedora-repos-rawhide && sudo dnf install -y --best --allowerasing --enablerepo rawhide nodejs
Appreciate the fast response time as well!
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 4:16 PM Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/18/2016 04:05 PM, Robert Van Voorhees wrote:
Hey guys, do we have a COPR or capability to run Node 6 on Fedora 24 at
the
moment? I realize we're still pushing for Node v4, but since we were
definitely
building it at one point, do we have a semi-official means to upgrade
to 6?
It's built and functional in Rawhide right now, so you should be able to pull it from there...
nodejs mailing list nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 07/18/2016 04:29 PM, Robert Van Voorhees wrote:
Sorry for mass, that last one has a typo:
Correct command is:
sudo dnf install -y fedora-repos-rawhide && sudo dnf install -y --best --allowerasing --enablerepo rawhide nodejs libuv
You need to upgrade libuv as well, otherwise you'll get:
node: symbol lookup error: node: undefined symbol: uv_fs_realpath
Hmm, that should have been specified as an explicit dependency for the nodejs package. Looks like a bug. Mind filing a BZ?
On 07/18/2016 04:32 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 07/18/2016 04:29 PM, Robert Van Voorhees wrote:
Sorry for mass, that last one has a typo:
Correct command is:
sudo dnf install -y fedora-repos-rawhide && sudo dnf install -y --best --allowerasing --enablerepo rawhide nodejs libuv
You need to upgrade libuv as well, otherwise you'll get:
node: symbol lookup error: node: undefined symbol: uv_fs_realpath
Hmm, that should have been specified as an explicit dependency for the nodejs package. Looks like a bug. Mind filing a BZ?
Ah, there's a bug in the version requirement. libuv has epoch: 1 but the requirement didn't account for this, so libuv 1:1.7.5 was satisfying it. I'll fix that up and push it out momentarily.
Thanks!
nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Robert Van Voorhees -
Stephen Gallagher -
Tom Hughes