[Input Requested] Ending support for i686 builds of Node.js

Upstream Node.js has not supported the i686 architecture officially since Node.js 10.x (released in 2018). As of Node.js 22, it appears that v8 will no longer build at all on that architecture. I'm not particularly willing to go to any great lengths to keep it alive on i686, but I want to know if

Re: nodepick idea: allow using any node version as /usr/bin/node

On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 10:09 AM Honza Horak wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 3:18 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:36 AM Michael Dawson wrote: >> > >> > Honza, correct. >> > >> > I was just trying to add that

Re: nodepick idea: allow using any node version as /usr/bin/node

On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:36 AM Michael Dawson wrote: > > Honza, correct. > > I was just trying to add that it's not just about consumption in RHEL > packages that use Node.js, but also customer applications and third party > applications that they might be running. > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at

Re: nodepick idea: allow using any node version as /usr/bin/node

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 11:19 AM Honza Horak wrote: > > The current implementation of alternative nodejs versions in a single Fedora > (say 38), is this: > * the main version (v18 in F38) ships /usr/bin/node > * alternative versions ship only /usr/bin/node-XX > > Node modules packaged as RPM

Re: [INPUT REQUESTED] Re: F38 proposal: Node.js Repackaging (Self-Contained Change proposal)

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. > &

Re: [INPUT REQUESTED] Re: F38 proposal: Node.js Repackaging (Self-Contained Change proposal)

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

[INPUT REQUESTED] Re: F38 proposal: Node.js Repackaging (Self-Contained Change proposal)

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

Re: The Future of Node.js Packaging

On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 9:31 AM Michael Dawson wrote: > > By > > I think there’s more value in making sure that the latest npm is compatible > > with the older runtimes and standardize on that. > > Do you mean use that by default for all versions of Node.js? That would be > different than the

Re: The Future of Node.js Packaging

On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 5:03 PM Frank R Dana Jr. wrote: > I wonder, should there also be /usr/bin/npm-16 and /usr/bin/npm-18, ala > /usr/bin/pip3.7, /usr/bin/pip3.8, /usr/bin/pydoc3.7, ... ? > > Right now, an 'npm' command always runs in whatever version is set as > /usr/bin/node, which makes it

Re: The Future of Node.js Packaging

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 3:48 PM Michael Dawson wrote: > > I can see how that is possible for Fedora but the same won't be true for RHEL Right, and RHEL has historically handled this through documentation and support policy rather than via preventing installation. The packages remain in the

Re: The Future of Node.js Packaging

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 2:27 PM Michael Dawson wrote: > > I'd be interested in some of the scenarios above, but where a version of > Node.js higher than the default has been installed. > > For example I install nodejs v20 (F37's default Node is v18, but v20 is now > available). I then run

Re: The Future of Node.js Packaging

On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 11:57 AM Neal Gompa wrote: ... > Could we use a subpackage owning `/usr/bin/node` instead of > alternatives, similar to Python? That's somewhat different, since the canonical name for the Python 3 interpreter is /usr/bin/python3. The subpackage that owns /usr/bin/python

The Future of Node.js Packaging

tl;dr: I want to drop the Node.js modules and make Node available as parallel-installable interpreters (with /usr/bin/node managed by the alternatives subsystem). For some time now, I've been looking at ways to improve our Node.js story to make it more maintainable. Modules seemed like a Good

Re: [Bug 2075170] New: Review Request: npm - A JavaScript Package Manager

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 10:26 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 10:19 AM Stephen Gallagher > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 2:39 PM Stephen Gallagher > > wrote: > > > > > > I've just submitted a review request for separat

Re: [Bug 2075170] New: Review Request: npm - A JavaScript Package Manager

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 2:39 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > I've just submitted a review request for separating out NPM into its > own package (again). This is being done for a couple reasons: > > 1) To get rid of the ridiculous release field and take advantage of > the %aut

Re: [Bug 2075170] New: Review Request: npm - A JavaScript Package Manager

On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 5:43 AM Zuzana Svetlikova wrote: > > Hi. > > I see your point, but is this really *needed*? > Has anyone ever complained about ugly release field, or is this just a > cosmetic thing? I've heard complaints, but that aspect *is* mostly cosmetic. By doing this, I'll also be

Fwd: [Bug 2075170] New: Review Request: npm - A JavaScript Package Manager

I've just submitted a review request for separating out NPM into its own package (again). This is being done for a couple reasons: 1) To get rid of the ridiculous release field and take advantage of the %autorelease macro 2) I'm planning to rework how the nodejs packages work to make different

Not updating Node to Mar. 17 security patches

The patches provided apply only to the bundled OpenSSL sources that we do not use. The affected CVEs are addressed instead by the `openssl` package. ___ nodejs mailing list -- nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: F35 Change: Node.js 16.x by default (System-Wide Change proposal)

This should now be fixed and in the next Rawhide compose. On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 9:26 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > Yes, it is. I'm working with Jeroen to resolve this. > > On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 9:20 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > On 02. 07. 21 14:13, Stephen Galla

Re: F35 Change: Node.js 16.x by default (System-Wide Change proposal)

Yes, it is. I'm working with Jeroen to resolve this. On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 9:20 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 02. 07. 21 14:13, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Stephen Gallagher > > wrote: > >> > >> I'm a little behind on this

Re: F35 Change: Node.js 16.x by default (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > I'm a little behind on this, but I've created side-tag > f35-build-side-42997 to perform any necessary nodejs-* rebuilds. > Currently I'm only aware of the `nodejs` and `R-V8` packages needing > to be rebuilt ther

Re: F35 Change: Node.js 16.x by default (System-Wide Change proposal)

a package that needs to be rebuilt against Node.js 16 (currently 16.4.0), please let me know immediately, as well as whether you want me to rebuild it for you or you will be doing it yourself in the side-tag. On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 10:11 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > Just a quick re

Re: Packaging - Plasma Browser Integration extension nodejs dependencies

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 12:52 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 12:39 PM Troy Dawson wrote: > > > > I see two ways to do this. > > First: Since web-ext is a nodejs binary, you could create the web-ext rpm. > > If you do this, make sure to use the nodejs bundled library script,[1]

Re: should we try keep coffee-script ?

Just a general reminder that our current recommendation[1] is to use the bundling script[2] provided by the `nodejs-packaging` package, which should make bringing coffee-script back to life somewhat easier. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Node.js/ [2]

Re: F35 Change: Node.js 16.x by default (System-Wide Change proposal)

Owner == > * Name: [[User:zvetlik| Zuzana Svetlikova]] > * Email: zsvet...@redhat.com > * Name: [[User:Sgallagh| Stephen Gallagher]] > * Email: sgall...@fedoraproject.org > * Responsible SIG: Node.js SIG > > > > == Detailed Description == > Fedora 35 will ship

Fwd: F35 Change: Node.js 16.x by default (System-Wide Change proposal)

available as non-default module streams. == Owner == * Name: [[User:zvetlik| Zuzana Svetlikova]] * Email: zsvet...@redhat.com * Name: [[User:Sgallagh| Stephen Gallagher]] * Email: sgall...@fedoraproject.org * Responsible SIG: Node.js SIG == Detailed Description == Fedora 35 will ship with the latest

Re: nodejs change proposal - javascript exception - thoughts

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 11:02 AM Troy Dawson wrote: > > Hello, > As the nodejs bundle libraries by default change proposal has worked > it's way through the process, a question came up that I'd like others > opinions on. > > Some nodejs packages also provide javascript sub-packages. An example >

Re: R.C. NodejsLibrariesBundleByDefault proposed change request

Sounds right to me. Thanks, Troy. On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 5:43 PM Troy Dawson wrote: > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 8:58 AM Troy Dawson wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 7:13 AM Stephen Gallagher > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2

Re: R.C. NodejsLibrariesBundleByDefault proposed change request

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 10:06 AM Troy Dawson wrote: > >> This part, I slightly disagree with. There's no strong reason to remove the >> existing packages from their system (and doing so could potentially break >> third-party software relying on it). It's enough to not provide a newer >>

Re: R.C. NodejsLibrariesBundleByDefault proposed change request

I went through and made some minor grammatical and spelling changes as well as one moderate functional change: I replaced the use of "orphan" in the text with "retire". Since we know already that we don't want those packages in the distro any longer, we shouldn't just leave them orphaned. On Wed,

Re: First draft of script and spec files

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 6:15 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 6:10 PM Troy Dawson wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 3:05 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 6:02 PM Troy Dawson > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Here is almost a first draft of the

Re: First draft of script and spec files

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 1:07 PM Ben Rosser wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 12:56 PM Troy Dawson wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 8:47 AM Stephen Gallagher > > wrote: ... > > > Frankly, I think we should probably get out of the business of >

Re: First draft of script and spec files

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:33 AM Troy Dawson wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:27 PM Ben Rosser wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 1:04 PM Troy Dawson wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 9:28 AM Tom Hughes wrote: > > > > > > > > On 03/09/2020 16:41, Troy Dawson wrote: > > > > > > >

Re: Orphaned 215 packages

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:53 AM Ben Rosser wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:34 AM Sérgio Basto wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2020-06-22 at 11:29 -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 3:09 PM Stephen Gallagher < > > > sgall...@redhat.com&

Re: Orphaned 215 packages

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:51 PM Ben Rosser wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:50 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 6:30 PM Ben Rosser wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:38 PM Jared K. Smith > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 3:41 PM Ben

Node.js 6.x in EPEL 7 is effectively EOL today

I am currently building the latest available Node.js 6.17.1 package for EPEL 7. As it reached EOL upstream, the package in EPEL is likely to become stale at this point. In the past, we opted at this time to upgrade to the latest LTS upstream release, however the 6.x line still has a fairly large

Orphaning several nodejs-* packages

I'm planning to orphan the following packages tomorrow, as I don't use them any more and don't have time to maintain them properly: * nodejs-spdx-expression-parse-v2.0.2 * nodejs-aproba-v2.0.0 * nodejs-read-package-tree * nodejs-less-3.8.1 If anyone would like to pick them up, let me know and

Re: Plans for Node.js in Fedora 29+

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 10:08 AM Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 8:06 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > So, as of Fedora 28, we now have Node.js as module streams (which means > that as of Fedora 28 GA, users w

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: nodejs packaging in Fedora

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:06 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com> wrote: > I haven't had any time to work on it, but I'd very much like to develop an > automatic RPM dependency generator that will recurse down the node_modules > directories, read their package.json files an

Node.js broken on CentOS until CentOS 7.4 is released

I tried bundling http-parser in the Node.js package on EPEL 7, but that revealed another issue. We've been carrying a patch for Node.js that makes it compatible with OpenSSL 1.0.1 (which was present on RHEL 7.0 through RHEL 7.3). However, RHEL 7.4 contains OpenSSL 1.0.2 and this version is what is

Re: nodejs packaging in Fedora

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 10:43 AM Troy Dawson wrote: > On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 6:48 AM, Stuart D Gathman > wrote: > > I've started working on packaging scuttlebot for Fedora. I see that we > now have a Fedora package for every nodejs module. This makes it

Re: Node 8

On 06/16/2017 10:24 AM, Benjamin Kircher wrote: > >> On 16. Jun 2017, at 14:19, Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> Yes, we already have a COPR for 8.x at >> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/nodejs-sig/nodejs-latest/ >> <https:

[Testing Requested] Node.js 6.10.0 in updates-testing

I submitted Node.js 6.10.0 into updates-testing yesterday. Most of the mirrors should be picking it up today. I'd appreciate it if some of the subscribers on this list would test it out under real workloads involving HTTPS, as it required significant rework of the patch to support the system CA

Node.js 6.9.5

Zuzana, I noticed you built Node.js 6.9.5 for Fedora 25 but not for EPEL 7. I'm not bothering with EPEL 7 because there were no changes to Node itself in this release, only to the bundled copy of OpenSSL which we sanitize from the tarball. So, I don't think it's worth the effort of going through

Re: Dropping node_g build

On 12/16/2016 02:36 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > While trying to build Node.js 6.9.2 today, it became apparent that there are > some build failures when building Node.js in debug mode that are not present > in > the production builds. > > Given that the debug builds onl

Re: Node.js FTBFS Fixes

On 12/06/2016 12:11 AM, Parag Nemade wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:02 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com > <mailto:sgall...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > As part of efforts around the Base Runtime, I'm working through several > FTBFS > iss

Node.js FTBFS Fixes

As part of efforts around the Base Runtime, I'm working through several FTBFS issues in Node.js packages in Fedora 25. Most of these are due to packages that were built prior to the release of Node.js 6.5, which slightly changed the semantics of the test runner for expected results. Most

EPEL 7 Node.js Uplift

I updated the Bodhi update in EPEL to the latest 6.7.0 security release last night. I just want to remind people that there remain only three days until EOL of 0.10.x, so I think we really need to make the cut-over today or tomorrow by providing karma to push the update to stable. It takes at

Re: NodeJS on Fedora Rawhide

Firefox. > Avoiding the upgrade to libicu is impossible. If Firefox is still being removed, that's likely a different problem. I just fixed a conflict in the npm package. >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:35 PM Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> O

Re: NodeJS on Fedora Rawhide

On 09/16/2016 01:16 PM, Robert Van Voorhees wrote: > Definitely getting some weirdness then on rawhide, assuming you go from a > normal > Fedora 24 install: > > [voor@x1 ~]$ sudo dnf upgrade nodejs --enablerepo=rawhide > Last metadata expiration check: 0:02:24 ago on Fri Sep 16 13:13:15 2016. >

Re: NodeJS on Fedora Rawhide

> problem) > > Not to mention the historical ugliness of gnome-shell on rawhide. Is that now > par for the course, or is there anything you can do to mitigate it? > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:25 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com > <mailto:sgall...@redhat.com>&

Re: NodeJS on Fedora Rawhide

On 09/15/2016 09:17 AM, Robert Van Voorhees wrote: > Hey guys, anyone notice that updating to Node 6.5 is pulling in a whole lot > more > stuff now than it used to? I'm trying to make the move from 6.3 to 6.5, and > it's forcing updates to gnome-shell, uninstalling Firefox, and a whole range >

Strategy for Node.js upgrade in EPEL 7

Apologies for the re-send, but I typoed the epel-devel email address on the first try. On 09/13/2016 09:27 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > Yesterday, I built the latest upstream version of Node.js for EPEL 7 (this > version will be supported until 2019-04-01) > > I have added it to t

Re: nodejs update

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 >&g

Re: Node 6.5.0

On 08/29/2016 01:03 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 08/29/2016 12:57 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: >> On 29/08/16 17:49, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>> On 08/29/2016 12:46 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: >>>> The nodejs 6.5.0 build that is running now breaks v8 abi so binary

Re: nodejs update

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 outdate

Re: Node 6.5.0

On 08/29/2016 12:57 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 29/08/16 17:49, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> On 08/29/2016 12:46 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: >>> The nodejs 6.5.0 build that is running now breaks v8 abi so binary >>> extensions >>> will need to be rebuilt. &g

Re: Node 6.5.0

On 08/29/2016 12:46 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: > The nodejs 6.5.0 build that is running now breaks v8 abi so binary extensions > will need to be rebuilt. > > I've got my script ready to go and will run it for rawhide and f25 once the > f25 > build of nodejs completes - ideally we will then need to

Re: NodeJS in EPEL for AltArches

On 08/28/2016 04:28 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > Before I forget again! > > When you do the new nodejs in EPEL can we add aarch64 and %{power64} > to the supported arches macro. The Power64 is already done, we'll be > doing aarch64 before the end of Sept. It'll save on the churn

Re: nodejs update

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

Re: Updating EPEL

On 08/10/2016 10:02 AM, Zuzana Svetlikova wrote: > I originally planned updating to v4, however, 6.x seems like a good idea. > > So, multiple errata for nodejs/native modules/npm, or one to rule them all? > There is ~700 nodejs packages in EPEL and I don't really know, if the rest > are >

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 >

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

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: Node.js security update

On 06/24/2016 10:21 AM, Zuzana Svetlikova wrote: > Hi, > > the security update was released yesterday, Node.js in f23 and f24 is > updated, > the version available in Rawhide wasn't affected. > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/nodejs-sec/pnACRfB7LBI > > Let me know if you have any

Re: Intent to orphan nodejs

On 06/03/2016 09:39 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 05/31/2016 09:56 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> As indicated in previous emails, my new $DAYJOB responsibilities are leaving >> little time to spend on Node.js maintenance work. I'm happy to hang around >> and >&

Re: Intent to orphan nodejs

yet. > A wealth of information on this subject can be found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers If you want some personal mentoring, look for me (sgallagh) in #fedora-devel on Freenode IRC and I'll help you get up to speed. >> On Wed, Jun 1

Re: Intent to orphan nodejs

On 06/07/2016 08:23 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 06/03/2016 09:39 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> On 05/31/2016 09:56 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>> As indicated in previous emails, my new $DAYJOB responsibilities are leaving >>> little time to spend on Node.js

Re: Intent to orphan nodejs

On 06/03/2016 09:39 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 05/31/2016 09:56 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> As indicated in previous emails, my new $DAYJOB responsibilities are leaving >> little time to spend on Node.js maintenance work. I'm happy to hang around >> and >&

Re: Intent to orphan nodejs

On 05/31/2016 09:56 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > As indicated in previous emails, my new $DAYJOB responsibilities are leaving > little time to spend on Node.js maintenance work. I'm happy to hang around and > serve as a comaintainer, but primary maintainership in Fedora should really be

Re: Intent to orphan nodejs

> On Jun 2, 2016, at 2:52 AM, Tomas Hrcka <thr...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> On 06/01/2016 03:59 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>> On 06/01/2016 08:25 AM, Tomas Hrcka wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I was responsible for nodejs in rhscl

Intent to orphan nodejs

As indicated in previous emails, my new $DAYJOB responsibilities are leaving little time to spend on Node.js maintenance work. I'm happy to hang around and serve as a comaintainer, but primary maintainership in Fedora should really be picked up by someone who can dedicate more time to it.

Re: Node.js 5.7.1

On 03/11/2016 03:33 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 10/03/16 16:20, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> On 03/10/2016 06:32 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> >>>> On Mar 10, 2016, at 4:43 AM, Tom Hughes <t...@compton.nu> wrote: >>>> >>>> - Th

Re: Node.js 5.7.1

On 03/11/2016 03:33 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 10/03/16 16:20, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> On 03/10/2016 06:32 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> >>>> On Mar 10, 2016, at 4:43 AM, Tom Hughes <t...@compton.nu> wrote: >>>> >>>> - Th

Re: Node.js 5.7.1

On 03/10/2016 12:25 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 10/03/16 16:20, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >> I've just pushed a new update to the repository that also includes Node.js >> 5.8.0 >> (released yesterday). Of course, since the minor version jumped, binary >>

Re: Node.js 5.7.1

On 03/10/2016 06:32 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > >> On Mar 10, 2016, at 4:43 AM, Tom Hughes <t...@compton.nu> wrote: >> >>> On 08/03/16 21:32, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>> >>> I put together a COPR that all of the Node.js SIG member have

Re: node crashing since mass rebuild

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/09/2016 03:53 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: > You may have noticed that there are quite a few builds being reported as > failing in koschei with SEGV errors during testing. > > The bad news is that it seems that the builds of node done with gcc 6 seem

Re: node crashing since mass rebuild

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/09/2016 10:45 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 02/09/2016 03:53 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: >> You may have noticed that there are quite a few builds being reported as >> failing in koschei with SEGV errors during testing. >

Re: node crashing since mass rebuild

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/09/2016 10:46 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 02/09/2016 10:45 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> On 02/09/2016 03:53 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: >>> You may have noticed that there are quite a few builds being reported >>

Re: Builds failing on EPEL7 ppc builders

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/15/2016 09:22 AM, Jared K. Smith wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Tom Hughes > wrote: > > This specific issue will stop being a problem when node 4 is > merged anyway as I understand it,

Re: sntp

> On Dec 14, 2015, at 4:10 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: > >> On 14/12/15 08:05, Piotr Popieluch wrote: >> >> I'm glad I'm not the only one feeling this way. As careful I am trying >> to be I still end up overlooking some dependency. I wonder if it would >> be possible to reuse the

Re: sntp

> On Dec 13, 2015, at 8:25 PM, Jared K. Smith wrote: > > >> On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: >> The remaining issue is updating the npm stack I think? > > Yes, that that's going to take quite a bit of work... Every time I sit down

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

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 <t...@compton.nu> wrote: >> >>> On 02/12/15 00:54, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>> >>> OK,

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 >

Re: Plans for Node.js

> On Dec 2, 2015, at 5:08 AM, Tom Hughes <t...@compton.nu> 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).

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 >&g

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. &g

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)? >> Is there any way

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: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/

Re: Thoughts on a NodeJS packaging group

+1 > On Nov 11, 2015, at 3:19 PM, Piotr Popieluch wrote: > > +1 > > >> On 11/11/2015 09:17 PM, Jared K. Smith wrote: >> Several of the other SIGs have a packaging group with ACL permissions on >> various packages that correspond with their SIG. I think we're to the >>

Re: Node.js on EPEL7

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/06/2014 11:48 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: Hi, all! The core runtime and its dependencies are now built for EPEL7, as is nodejs-packaging. The libraries and npm are next. If you own a package that is present in EPEL6, expect me to bug