On 04/27/2016 08:59 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Josh Boyer
<jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Denise Dumas <ddumas(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> Sounds like a job for rhscl :-)
>
> Maybe?
>
> Having nodejs in an SCL (or eventually module) would certainly help
> with versioning issues going forward. However, given Fedora has
> nodejs in the base repository today, Stephen is still left with a hard
> choice here. If his repoquery magic is correct then I think reverting
> to 4.x at the base level for F24 is likely the right idea.
>
> I do like the idea of having 5.x and 6.x in an SCL or module or COPR
> (all somewhat variations on a theme) though.
>
Would it be possible to try a nodejs 6.x build of everything in a
side-tag or something? My understanding (based on the changelog) is
that things should generally work, as while the ABI broke, most of the
API remained the same.
Well, Rawhide will be moving to Node.js 6.x relatively soon and I think it's
probably safe to assume that a COPR will appear for running it on F24 if we
decide to do the downgrade (or stay on 5.x).
Personally, I'm not a fan of the idea of using SCLs to support
newer
environments in Fedora. I'd prefer if SCLs were used to support older
ones, with newer ones being the default.
Well, I think the idea behind modularization is that we would build a module for
each of the versions and they would follow their own lifecycle and not
necessarily be tightly dependent on the base Fedora release. Thus there wouldn't
really be a "default" for anything that wasn't a component of the
foundational
module (aka the "base" module).