F23 Self Contained Change: io.js Technology Preview

[Jan Kurik]

= Proposed Self Contained Change: io.js Technology Preview =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/iojs

Change owner(s): T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth at gmail dot com>

io.js is an npm compatible platform originally based on Node.js™ that supports version 6
of the ECMAScript standard and additional features, developed with an open governance
model. io.js will be offered as an optional replacement for `/usr/bin/node` on Fedora
systems as a Technology Preview. node.js will remain the default implementation of
`/usr/bin/node` in Fedora 23. 

== Detailed Description ==
io.js is an npm compatible platform originally based on Node.js™ that supports version 6
of the ECMAScript standard and additional features, developed with an open governance
model. For more information about io.js and the differences between node.js, visit the
io.js website.

io.js will support the same set of binary modules currently supported by node.js on
Fedora. It is expected to be obsoleted by a future version of the `nodejs` package, as
these two projects have announced their intention to merge.

We will support both parallel-installation of the iojs interpreter alongside the existing
node.js interpreter, and permit replacement of `/usr/bin/node` with io.js in an additional
package. All existing noarch nodejs-* packages will work with both interpreters. (Though
obviously you'll have to specify iojs if you haven't installed it the
/usr/bin/node support package.) Seperate nodejs-* and iojs-* will be provided for binary
modules. 

== Scope ==
* Proposal owners:
  -- Package and build a special v8 package for io.js only.
  -- Package and build iojs
  -- Update nodejs guidelines for multiple interpreters
  -- Rebuild modules with above changes
  -- Anything that needs updates for Node.js 0.12 will need it for io.js too. 
* Other developers:
  -- Anything that needs updates for Node.js 0.12 will need it for io.js too. 
* Release engineering: N/A (not a System Wide Change) 
* Policies and guidelines:
  -- Updates to the node.js guidelines and packaging infrastructure to permit building
binary modules for multiple interpreters will be necessary. (These are also necessary to
allow for a nodejs010/nodejs012 split in EPEL, so will get done anyway.) 
* Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change) 
-- 
Jan Kuřík
_______________________________________________
devel-announce mailing list
devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 24.6.2015 v 01:52 Jan Kurik napsal(a):
>    -- Package and build a special v8 package for io.js only.
>  
Hmmm ... What is it? Is it fork?


Vít

[Peter Robinson]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Jan Kurik <jkurik(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  = Proposed Self Contained Change: io.js Technology Preview =
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/iojs
>
>  Change owner(s): T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth at gmail dot com>
>
>  io.js is an npm compatible platform originally based on Node.js™ that supports version 6
> of the ECMAScript standard and additional features, developed with an open governance
> model. io.js will be offered as an optional replacement for `/usr/bin/node` on Fedora
> systems as a Technology Preview. node.js will remain the default implementation of
> `/usr/bin/node` in Fedora 23.
>
>  == Detailed Description ==
>  io.js is an npm compatible platform originally based on Node.js™ that supports version 6
> of the ECMAScript standard and additional features, developed with an open governance
> model. For more information about io.js and the differences between node.js, visit the
> io.js website.
>
>  io.js will support the same set of binary modules currently supported by node.js on
> Fedora. It is expected to be obsoleted by a future version of the `nodejs` package, as
> these two projects have announced their intention to merge.
>
>  We will support both parallel-installation of the iojs interpreter alongside the existing
> node.js interpreter, and permit replacement of `/usr/bin/node` with io.js in an additional
> package. All existing noarch nodejs-* packages will work with both interpreters. (Though
> obviously you'll have to specify iojs if you haven't installed it the
> /usr/bin/node support package.) Seperate nodejs-* and iojs-* will be provided for binary
> modules. 
Why are we even bothering with this when io.js is merging back into
node.js so from what I can see is that io.js won't really be around
for much longer

http://thenextweb.com/dd/2015/06/16/node-js-and-io-js-are-settling-their-...

[Josef Stribny]

On 06/24/2015 10:21 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>  On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Jan Kurik <jkurik(a)redhat.com&gt;
> wrote:
> > = Proposed Self Contained Change: io.js Technology Preview =
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/iojs
> >
> > Change owner(s): T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth at gmail dot com>
> >
> > io.js is an npm compatible platform originally based on Node.js™ that supports
> version 6 of the ECMAScript standard and additional features, developed with an open
> governance model. io.js will be offered as an optional replacement for `/usr/bin/node` on
> Fedora systems as a Technology Preview. node.js will remain the default implementation of
> `/usr/bin/node` in Fedora 23.
> >
> > == Detailed Description ==
> > io.js is an npm compatible platform originally based on Node.js™ that supports
> version 6 of the ECMAScript standard and additional features, developed with an open
> governance model. For more information about io.js and the differences between node.js,
> visit the io.js website.
> >
> > io.js will support the same set of binary modules currently supported by node.js on
> Fedora. It is expected to be obsoleted by a future version of the `nodejs` package, as
> these two projects have announced their intention to merge.
> >
> > We will support both parallel-installation of the iojs interpreter alongside the
> existing node.js interpreter, and permit replacement of `/usr/bin/node` with io.js in an
> additional package. All existing noarch nodejs-* packages will work with both
> interpreters. (Though obviously you'll have to specify iojs if you haven't
> installed it the /usr/bin/node support package.) Seperate nodejs-* and iojs-* will be
> provided for binary modules.
>  Why are we even bothering with this when io.js is merging back into
>  node.js so from what I can see is that io.js won't really be around
>  for much longer
>
>
> http://thenextweb.com/dd/2015/06/16/node-js-and-io-js-are-settling-their-...
Exactly my thoughts. Plus also introducing another v8 package because of 
that?

Josef

[T.C. Hollingsworth]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 6:16 AM, Josef Stribny <jstribny(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Exactly my thoughts. Plus also introducing another v8 package because
> of
>  that? 
Having io.js' v8 as well should actually be a good thing for the
distribution.  Unlike node.js, which sticks with the same v8 released
with a particular version of Chrome forever, io.js only cares about
API/ABI compatbility and will accept updates from future Chrome
releases as long as they don't break that compatibility.

People have been complaining about our ancient v8 for years now, so
with this there will a much faster-moving one that will still retain
binary compatibility for the life of a Fedora release.

-T.C.

[T.C. Hollingsworth]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:21 AM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  Why are we even bothering with this when io.js is merging back into
>  node.js so from what I can see is that io.js won't really be around
>  for much longer 
That's exactly why we're bothering with it.  Everything in it will be
in the nodejs package someday.  Why not get ready now?

Also, the packaging infrastructure needed to build binary modules
against iojs and nodejs will also make nodejs010/nodejs012 split
packaging possible in EPEL, so a lot of the work needed to get this
done is going to be done sooner or later anyway...

-T.C.

[T.C. Hollingsworth]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:56 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth
<tchollingsworth(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:21 AM, Peter Robinson
> <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> > Why are we even bothering with this when io.js is merging back into
> > node.js so from what I can see is that io.js won't really be around
> > for much longer
>
>  That's exactly why we're bothering with it.  Everything in it will be
>  in the nodejs package someday.  Why not get ready now? 
For the benefit of those not reading the other thread, I might add
that io.js also adds support for the PowerPC architecture.  That will
make it the only provider of /usr/bin/node on that platform.

-T.C.

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Wed, 2015-06-24 at 13:53 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
>  On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:56 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth
>  <tchollingsworth(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:21 AM, Peter Robinson <
>  > pbrobinson(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  > > Why are we even bothering with this when io.js is merging back 
>  > > into
>  > > node.js so from what I can see is that io.js won't really be 
>  > > around
>  > > for much longer
>  > 
>  > That's exactly why we're bothering with it.  Everything in it will 
>  > be
>  > in the nodejs package someday.  Why not get ready now?
>  
>  For the benefit of those not reading the other thread, I might add
>  that io.js also adds support for the PowerPC architecture.  That will
>  make it the only provider of /usr/bin/node on that platform.
>   

So this was discussed at today's FESCo meeting[1]. Basically, we're not
sure that it makes sense to have both interpreters in the distribution,
particularly since they are merging back together in the future.

Would you be willing to consider just packaging io.js *as* node.js in
Fedora 23? Among other things, this would avoid the need to go through
additional package reviews, rebuild nodejs-* packages to work with
io.js, etc.

My limited understanding of io.js is that it is essentially a superset
of node.js functionality, so it seems like just moving to this instead
of node.js 0.12.0 would make sense.

Otherwise, will this Change require building NPM packages for iojs
-<module> rather than (or in addition to) nodejs-module? Can this be
avoided by running them with an alternatives-provided /usr/bin/node?


[1] http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2015-07
-01/fesco.2015-07-01-18.01.html

[T.C. Hollingsworth]

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  So this was discussed at today's FESCo meeting[1]. Basically,
> we're not
>  sure that it makes sense to have both interpreters in the distribution,
>  particularly since they are merging back together in the future.
>
>  Would you be willing to consider just packaging io.js *as* node.js in
>  Fedora 23? Among other things, this would avoid the need to go through
>  additional package reviews, rebuild nodejs-* packages to work with
>  io.js, etc.
>
>  My limited understanding of io.js is that it is essentially a superset
>  of node.js functionality, 
This is correct.  It has additional features but is broadly compatible
with the ecosystem of packages available via npm.

>  so it seems like just moving to this instead
>  of node.js 0.12.0 would make sense. 
I'm fine with moving the default engine in Fedora 23 to io.js.

I'm not so fine with still calling the package we ship io.js in
"nodejs", since it's not node.js, and we can't be entirely sure the
next version of node.js will be greater than the current version of
io.js (although I believe that is the plan).

>  Otherwise, will this Change require building NPM packages for iojs
>  -<module> rather than (or in addition to) nodejs-module? Can this be
>  avoided by running them with an alternatives-provided /usr/bin/node? 
No.  Only binary modules would require special iojs-foo cousins due to
the different binary compatibility surface of the two engines.  These
would be built from the SRPMS that already exist.  While binary module
SRPMs would require changes, none would be necessary for
pure-JavaScript modules.

npm does not offer any ability to ship different code when different
node.js/io.js versions are used, so it really isn't necessary for us
to either.  The vast majority of all code in the ecosystem will either
Just Work or detect and do the right thing at runtime.  We also don't
really have the resources to maintain two separate stacks of
JavaScript applications, as you're rightly concerned about.

Therefore, we do not intend to support shipping different versions of
pure-JavaScript nodejs software for different engines, though it of
course will be possible to express that a particular package only
works/doesn't work with a particular engine via Requires/Conflicts.

Note that all of the above is a concern for the SIG even if we only
ship io.js in Fedora, as I'd eventually like to get 0.12 into EPEL
without leaving 0.10 users in the dust.  My intention was to design
the binary SRPM build logic such that the same SRPM would build
nodejs-foo and iojs-foo cousins on Fedora and nodejs0.10-foo and
nodejs0.12-foo cousins on EPEL with no spec changes.

So remember that some big changes are coming to nodejs-packaging and
binary module SRPMs anyway, the only question is which branches
they're landing in.  ;-)

-T.C.

[Parag Nemade]

Hi,

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 2:47 AM, T.C. Hollingsworth <
tchollingsworth(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Stephen Gallagher
> <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  wrote:
>  > So this was discussed at today's FESCo meeting[1]. Basically, we're not
>  > sure that it makes sense to have both interpreters in the distribution,
>  > particularly since they are merging back together in the future.
>  >
>  > Would you be willing to consider just packaging io.js *as* node.js in
>  > Fedora 23? Among other things, this would avoid the need to go through
>  > additional package reviews, rebuild nodejs-* packages to work with
>  > io.js, etc.
>  >
>  > My limited understanding of io.js is that it is essentially a superset
>  > of node.js functionality,
>
>  This is correct.  It has additional features but is broadly compatible
>  with the ecosystem of packages available via npm.
>
>  > so it seems like just moving to this instead
>  > of node.js 0.12.0 would make sense.
>
>  I'm fine with moving the default engine in Fedora 23 to io.js.
>
>  I'm not so fine with still calling the package we ship io.js in
>  "nodejs", since it's not node.js, and we can't be entirely sure the
>  next version of node.js will be greater than the current version of
>  io.js (although I believe that is the plan).
>
>  > Otherwise, will this Change require building NPM packages for iojs
>  > -<module> rather than (or in addition to) nodejs-module? Can this be
>  > avoided by running them with an alternatives-provided /usr/bin/node?
>
>  No.  Only binary modules would require special iojs-foo cousins due to
>  the different binary compatibility surface of the two engines.  These
>  would be built from the SRPMS that already exist.  While binary module
>  SRPMs would require changes, none would be necessary for
>  pure-JavaScript modules.
>
>  npm does not offer any ability to ship different code when different
>  node.js/io.js versions are used, so it really isn't necessary for us
>  to either.  The vast majority of all code in the ecosystem will either
>  Just Work or detect and do the right thing at runtime.  We also don't
>  really have the resources to maintain two separate stacks of
>  JavaScript applications, as you're rightly concerned about.
>
>  Therefore, we do not intend to support shipping different versions of
>  pure-JavaScript nodejs software for different engines, though it of
>  course will be possible to express that a particular package only
>  works/doesn't work with a particular engine via Requires/Conflicts.
>
>  Note that all of the above is a concern for the SIG even if we only
>  ship io.js in Fedora, as I'd eventually like to get 0.12 into EPEL
>  without leaving 0.10 users in the dust.  My intention was to design
>  the binary SRPM build logic such that the same SRPM would build
>  nodejs-foo and iojs-foo cousins on Fedora and nodejs0.10-foo and
>  nodejs0.12-foo cousins on EPEL with no spec changes.
>
>  So remember that some big changes are coming to nodejs-packaging and
>  binary module SRPMs anyway, the only question is which branches
>  they're landing in.  ;-)
>
>  
Can you please add this information on change wiki page as well?

Thanks,
Parag.