Re: Plans for Node.js in Fedora 29+

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 10:08 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 8:06 AM Stephen Gallagher > wrote: > > > So, as of Fedora 28, we now have Node.js as module streams (which means > that as of Fedora 28 GA, users will be able to pick which of

Re: Plans for Node.js in Fedora 29+

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 8:06 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > So, as of Fedora 28, we now have Node.js as module streams (which means that as of Fedora 28 GA, users will be able to pick which of 6.x, 8.x or 9.x they want to have on their system). However, we're *also* shipping

Plans for Node.js in Fedora 29+

So, as of Fedora 28, we now have Node.js as module streams (which means that as of Fedora 28 GA, users will be able to pick which of 6.x, 8.x or 9.x they want to have on their system). However, we're *also* shipping an 8.x version in the traditional repository which is somewhat superfluous. My

Re: Plans for Node.js 6.x

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

Re: Plans for Node.js 6.x

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

Re: Plans for Node.js 6.x

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:

Re: Plans for Node.js 6.x

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? >

Re: Plans for Node.js 6.x

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

Re: Plans for Node.js 6.x

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 wrote: > On 02/05/16 19:31, Robert Van Voorhees

Re: Plans for Node.js 6.x

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 (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/

Re: Plans for Node.js 6.x

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

Re: Plans for Node.js

On 07/12/15 13:41, Stephen Gallagher wrote: nodejs-millstone-0.6.16-4.fc24 reports: DEBUG util.py:393: Error: nothing provides nodejs(v8-abi) = 4.6 needed by nodejs-zipfile-0.5.9-3.fc24.aarch64 This was due to a typo that I added to the nodejs-4.2.2 series of builds; the nodejs(v8-abi) was

Re: Plans for Node.js

W dniu 07.12.2015 o 13:55, Marcin Juszkiewicz pisze: Found issues to fix on packaging side: node-gyp depends on v8-devel while nodejs 4.2.x bundles it - dependency needs to be removed docco: created /usr/share/doc/docco/resources and not packaged it. nodejs-millstone-0.6.16-4.fc24

Re: Plans for Node.js

On 03/12/15 00:55, Tom Hughes wrote: Ones which have been updated to new upstream releases and/or patches from upstream and built in the side tag: nodejs-i2c nodejs-libxmljs One where work is still needed: nodejs-node-stringprep has a patch on github but the comments suggest it still has

Re: Plans for Node.js

W dniu 01.01.1970 o 01:00, Stephen Gallagher pisze: Someone needs to step up to lead these updates. I certainly don't have the time and packaging experience to do this. I have the packaging experience and can try to help with reviews, but my daily tasks will prevent me from doing a lot of

Re: Plans for Node.js

On 07/12/15 12:55, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: nodejs-fs-ext ExclusiveArch only for primary instead of %{nodejs_arches} I've pushed a fix for this and it's building in the side tag now. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___

Re: Plans for Node.js

nt: Thursday, December 3, 2015 1:55:29 AM Subject: Re: Plans for Node.js On 02/12/15 17:04, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > Should be all set now. Thanks for catching that. So current status of the binary modules is as follows. Firstly ones that were using nan v2 and have been rebuilt successfu

Re: Plans for Node.js

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/03/2015 08:12 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 12/03/2015 08:06 AM, Zuzana Svetlikova wrote: >> There is a CVE, I am not sure if we have the fixed sources >> already. > >> https://nodejs.org/en/blog/vulnerability/cve-2015-8027_cve-2015-6764/

Re: Plans for Node.js

On 03/12/15 17:29, Tom Hughes wrote: If you load index.html in a browser it will run the tests, but I can't see any obvious way to run it from the command line and it relies on injecting methods into the window object. So you can do it with node-qunit... But it's a bit fiddly... npm install

Re: Plans for Node.js

On 03/12/15 20:52, Jared K. Smith wrote: Wow, not sure I would have figured that out on my own. I got as far as packaging up the dependencies for qunit, but there's obviously something wrong in my qunit package because it was giving me a different error. When I use the qunit installed by npm,

Re: Plans for Node.js

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/02/2015 05:43 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > >> On Dec 2, 2015, at 5:08 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: >> >>> On 02/12/15 00:54, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>> >>> OK, the f24-nodejs4 side-tag now has all the pieces up to and >>>

Re: Plans for Node.js

On 02/12/15 15:28, Stephen Gallagher wrote: Looks like the ARM build from upstream is broken for the Debug builds but works fine for the Release builds. For the moment, I just disabled the Debug builds (and the node_g binary) for ARM. That has now built to completion in the side-tag. Now in

Re: Plans for Node.js

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/02/2015 11:12 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 12/02/2015 10:56 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: >> On 02/12/15 15:28, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >>> Looks like the ARM build from upstream is broken for the Debug >>> builds but works fine for the

Re: Plans for Node.js

On 02/12/15 17:04, Stephen Gallagher wrote: Should be all set now. Thanks for catching that. So current status of the binary modules is as follows. Firstly ones that were using nan v2 and have been rebuilt successfully in the side tag: nodejs-fs-ext nodejs-gdal nodejs-iconv

Re: Plans for Node.js

> On Dec 2, 2015, at 5:08 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: > >> On 02/12/15 00:54, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> >> OK, the f24-nodejs4 side-tag now has all the pieces up to and >> including the nodejs-4.2.2-1.fc24 package. (This does not include npm). >> >> Basically, I needed to build

Re: Plans for Node.js

On 02/12/15 00:54, Stephen Gallagher wrote: OK, the f24-nodejs4 side-tag now has all the pieces up to and including the nodejs-4.2.2-1.fc24 package. (This does not include npm). Basically, I needed to build three packages: libuv 1.7.5, http_parser 2.6.0 and Node.js 4.2.2 Actually the nodejs

Re: Plans for Node.js

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/30/2015 07:53 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 11/30/2015 08:22 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> On 11/30/2015 08:21 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>> In order to avoid breaking Rawhide significantly, I think it >>> would be a good idea to

Re: Plans for Node.js

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > I have the packaging experience and can try to help with reviews, but > my daily tasks will prevent me from doing a lot of active work right > now. That said, I know that there are plenty of people with a vested >

Re: Plans for Node.js

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > I'm resurrecting the 0.12 upgrade Change Proposal and updating it to > 4.x: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NodeJS4x > > I've put my name on it as the Change Owner, but I'd appreciate if > anyone else who is

Re: Plans for Node.js

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/30/2015 08:22 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 11/30/2015 08:21 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> In order to avoid breaking Rawhide significantly, I think it >> would be a good idea to request a side-tag to work on this. > > I went ahead and

Re: Plans for Node.js

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/29/2015 03:17 PM, Piotr Popieluch wrote: > On 11/26/2015 01:11 PM, Zuzana Svetlikova wrote: >> Are there any actual plans for Node.js stack in fedora? Are we >> going to update everything and hope that nothing breaks (much)? >

Re: Plans for Node.js

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/30/2015 08:21 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > In order to avoid breaking Rawhide significantly, I think it would > be a good idea to request a side-tag to work on this. I went ahead and requested that tag:

Re: Plans for Node.js

Hi, On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:47 AM, Piotr Popieluch <piotr1...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/26/2015 01:11 PM, Zuzana Svetlikova wrote: > > Are there any actual plans for Node.js stack in fedora? > > Are we going to update everything and hope that nothing > > brea