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::FunctionCallbackInfo<v8::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-x86_64/00182807-nodejs/build.log.gz On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:37 PM Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@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 outdated, 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 Why do you think it's outdated?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.git/ > > > > > 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 <sgall...@redhat.com > > <mailto:sgall...@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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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