Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Node.js 14.x by default

[Ben Cotton]

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Nodejs14x

== Summary ==
The latest release of Node.js to carry a 30-month lifecycle is the
14.x series. As with 12.x, 10.x and 8.x before it, Fedora 33 will
carry 14.x as the default Node.js interpreter for the system. The 12.x
interpreter will remain available as a non-default module stream.

== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:zvetlik| Zuzana Svetlikova]]
* Email: zsvetlik(a)redhat.com
* Name: [[User:Sgallagh| Stephen Gallagher]]
* Email: sgallagh(a)fedoraproject.org
* Responsible SIG: Node.js SIG


== Detailed Description ==
Fedora 33 will ship with the latest LTS version of Node.js by default.
This will either be the `nodejs:14` module stream or else replicated
to the non-modular repository, depending on the status of other
release engineering work around supporting modular content in the
non-modular buildroots. To end-users, the experience should be
identical: `dnf install nodejs` will give them `nodejs-14.x` and the
matching `npm` package.

== Benefit to Fedora ==
Node.js is a popular server-side JavaScript engine. Keeping Fedora on
the latest release allows us to continue tracking the state-of-the-art
in that space. For those whose applications do not yet work with the
14.x release, Fedora 33 will also have the 12.x release available as a
selectable module stream.

== Scope ==
* Proposal owners:
The packages are already built for Fedora 33 in a non-default module
stream. On June 14th, 2020, the nodejs-14.x packages will become the
default in Fedora 33 (either by making the 14.x module stream be the
default stream or by rebuilding the packages as non-modular, depending
on other factors).

* Other developers: Any developer with a package that depends on
Node.js at run-time or build-time should test with the 14.x module
stream enabled as soon as possible. Issues should be reported to
nodejs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org

* Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9426 #9426]
Release engineering and FESCo will need to approve the change to the
default module stream.

* Policies and guidelines: N/A (not needed for this Change)
* Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)


== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
As with previous releases, users running Fedora 31 or Fedora 32 with
the non-modular nodejs-12.x packages will be automatically upgraded to
the 14.x packages, which may cause issues. If users are running
software known not to support Node.js 14.x yet, they can switch the
system to use 12.x with dnf module commands.

== How To Test ==
* Confirm that `dnf install nodejs` results in Node.js 14.x being installed.
* Confirm that upgrading from Fedora 31 or Fedora 32 with nodejs-12.x
installed (non-modular) results in an upgrade to nodejs-14.x
* Confirm that upgrading from Fedora 31 or Fedora 32 with the
`nodejs:12` module enabled does *not* result in an upgrade to 14.x and
still has `nodejs:12` enabled on Fedora 33.
* Confirm that upgrading from Fedora 31 or Fedora 32 with the
`nodejs:14` module enabled upgrades successfully and still has
`nodejs:14` enabled on Fedora 33.

== User Experience ==
Users will have the 14.x release of Node.js available by default. See
the "Upgrade/compatibility impact" section for specific details.

== Dependencies ==
All packages prefixed with `nodejs-` depend on this package. If they
do not work with Node.js 14.x, they will need to be updated, made
modular and dependent upon the `nodejs:12` stream or else removed from
Fedora 33.

Prior to the switchover date to Node.js 14.x as the default, packagers
are strongly encouraged to test their existing Node modules with 14.x
via the Modular version by running:

```
dnf reset nodejs
dnf module install nodejs:12/development
```

== Contingency Plan ==
* Contingency mechanism:
Revert to Node.js 12.x as the default stream. This may require bumping
epoch or making the `nodejs:12` stream the default, depending on the
status of the modules-in-non-modular-buildroot work at the time.

* Contingency deadline: Beta Freeze
* Blocks release? No
* Blocks product? No

== Documentation ==
* https://nodejs.org/dist/latest-v14.x/docs/api/
* https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/doc/changelogs/CHANGELOG_V14.md

== Release Notes ==
Fedora 33 now ships with Node.js 14.x as the default Node.js
JavaScript server-side engine. If your applications are not yet ready
for this newer version, you can revert to the 12.x series by running
the following commands

<pre>
dnf remove nodejs
dnf module reset nodejs
dnf module install nodejs:14
</pre>


-- 
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis

[Miro Hrončok]

On 01. 05. 20 22:21, Ben Cotton wrote:
>  == Detailed Description ==
>  Fedora 33 will ship with the latest LTS version of Node.js by default.
>  This will either be the `nodejs:14` module stream or else replicated
>  to the non-modular repository, depending on the status of other
>  release engineering work around supporting modular content in the
>  non-modular buildroots. 
Since default modular streams are banned, this doesn't depend on release 
engineering work. Can we please just outright say the nonmodular Nodejs will be 
updated?

-- 
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: [phone]
IRC: mhroncok

[Petr Pisar]

On Sat, May 02, 2020 at 02:01:43AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>  On 01. 05. 20 22:21, Ben Cotton wrote:
>  > == Detailed Description ==
>  > Fedora 33 will ship with the latest LTS version of Node.js by default.
>  > This will either be the `nodejs:14` module stream or else replicated
>  > to the non-modular repository, depending on the status of other
>  > release engineering work around supporting modular content in the
>  > non-modular buildroots.
>  
>  Since default modular streams are banned, 
Indeed? I thought that they are not banned, they only need a FESCo approval.

Maybe a related issue: Where did Module packaging guidelines disappear?
I remember they were reachable from
<https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/docs/>;.
(Home → Packaging Guidelines navigation at
<https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/> does not work.)

-- Petr

[Miro Hrončok]

On 04. 05. 20 10:51, Petr Pisar wrote:
>  On Sat, May 02, 2020 at 02:01:43AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 01. 05. 20 22:21, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >> == Detailed Description ==
> >> Fedora 33 will ship with the latest LTS version of Node.js by default.
> >> This will either be the `nodejs:14` module stream or else replicated
> >> to the non-modular repository, depending on the status of other
> >> release engineering work around supporting modular content in the
> >> non-modular buildroots.
> > Since default modular streams are banned,
>  Indeed? I thought that they are not banned, they only need a FESCo approval. 
Indeed:

https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2341#comment-628267

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail].o...

Should we be more loud about his?

-- 
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: [phone]
IRC: mhroncok

[James Cassell]

On Mon, May 4, 2020, at 5:39 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>  On 04. 05. 20 10:51, Petr Pisar wrote:
>  > On Sat, May 02, 2020 at 02:01:43AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>  >> On 01. 05. 20 22:21, Ben Cotton wrote:
>  >>> == Detailed Description ==
>  >>> Fedora 33 will ship with the latest LTS version of Node.js by default.
>  >>> This will either be the `nodejs:14` module stream or else replicated
>  >>> to the non-modular repository, depending on the status of other
>  >>> release engineering work around supporting modular content in the
>  >>> non-modular buildroots.
>  >> Since default modular streams are banned,
>  > Indeed? I thought that they are not banned, they only need a FESCo approval.
>  
>  Indeed:
>  
>  https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2341#comment-628267
>  
>
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail].o...
>  
>  Should we be more loud about his?
>   
It's a welcome change, and I hadn't heard about it. An announcement seems
appropriate.

V/r,
James Cassell

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 8:03 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  On 01. 05. 20 22:21, Ben Cotton wrote:
>  > == Detailed Description ==
>  > Fedora 33 will ship with the latest LTS version of Node.js by default.
>  > This will either be the `nodejs:14` module stream or else replicated
>  > to the non-modular repository, depending on the status of other
>  > release engineering work around supporting modular content in the
>  > non-modular buildroots.
>
>  Since default modular streams are banned, this doesn't depend on release
>  engineering work. Can we please just outright say the nonmodular Nodejs will be
>  updated? 
When we wrote that, there was still ambiguity regarding whether DNF
would have implemented the necessary upgrade capabilities we've been
discussing for the last six months. If it landed, I planned to ask
FESCo for permission to re-enable that and get us out of the position
of needing to build both the modular and non-modular versions. It
doesn't look like that's going to make it for F33, so sure; we can
change the wording here.

[Miro Hrončok]

On 08. 05. 20 22:17, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>  When we wrote that, there was still ambiguity regarding whether DNF
>  would have implemented the necessary upgrade capabilities we've been
>  discussing for the last six months. 
Just to clarify: DNF upgrade capabilities are not the thing that is holding back 
default modules. It is somebody writing a policy wrt what we ship in modules and 
what we don't.

 From the ticket:

https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2341#comment-627466

"""For Fedora 32 and onward, all default modular streams are banned.
Existing 
defaults are removed. Once a comprehensive modular policy for Fedora is created 
and approved by FESCo, this ban can be lifted. The future policy should allow 
modularizing, but the primary objective is to make sure that the user experience 
and nonmodular packaging experience is not significantly worse than before 
modularity."""

-- 
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: [phone]
IRC: mhroncok

[Miro Hrončok]

On 01. 05. 20 22:21, Ben Cotton wrote:
>  * Proposal owners:
>  The packages are already built for Fedora 33 in a non-default module
>  stream. On June 14th, 2020, the nodejs-14.x packages will become the
>  default in Fedora 33 (either by making the 14.x module stream be the
>  default stream or by rebuilding the packages as non-modular, depending
>  on other factors). 
Will there be an attempted mass rebuild of the dependent packages?

-- 
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: [phone]
IRC: mhroncok

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 6:26 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  On 01. 05. 20 22:21, Ben Cotton wrote:
>  > * Proposal owners:
>  > The packages are already built for Fedora 33 in a non-default module
>  > stream. On June 14th, 2020, the nodejs-14.x packages will become the
>  > default in Fedora 33 (either by making the 14.x module stream be the
>  > default stream or by rebuilding the packages as non-modular, depending
>  > on other factors).
>
>  Will there be an attempted mass rebuild of the dependent packages? 
We're going to request a side-tag and rebuild all of the `nodejs-*`
packages. Anything that fails will need to have an FTBFS bug filed.

[Tom Hughes]

On 08/05/2020 21:18, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>  On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 6:26 PM Miro Hrončok
> <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
> >
> > On 01. 05. 20 22:21, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >> * Proposal owners:
> >> The packages are already built for Fedora 33 in a non-default module
> >> stream. On June 14th, 2020, the nodejs-14.x packages will become the
> >> default in Fedora 33 (either by making the 14.x module stream be the
> >> default stream or by rebuilding the packages as non-modular, depending
> >> on other factors).
> >
> > Will there be an attempted mass rebuild of the dependent packages?
>  
>  We're going to request a side-tag and rebuild all of the `nodejs-*`
>  packages. Anything that fails will need to have an FTBFS bug filed. 
Why? We're never done that for Node.js upgrades before, and it's
only the binary modules which actually need to be rebuilt...

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes (tom(a)compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 6:03 PM Tom Hughes <tom(a)compton.nu&gt; wrote:
>  On 08/05/2020 21:18, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>  > On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 6:26 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  >>
>  >> On 01. 05. 20 22:21, Ben Cotton wrote:
>  >>> * Proposal owners:
>  >>> The packages are already built for Fedora 33 in a non-default module
>  >>> stream. On June 14th, 2020, the nodejs-14.x packages will become the
>  >>> default in Fedora 33 (either by making the 14.x module stream be the
>  >>> default stream or by rebuilding the packages as non-modular, depending
>  >>> on other factors).
>  >>
>  >> Will there be an attempted mass rebuild of the dependent packages?
>  >
>  > We're going to request a side-tag and rebuild all of the `nodejs-*`
>  > packages. Anything that fails will need to have an FTBFS bug filed.
>
>  Why? We're never done that for Node.js upgrades before, and it's
>  only the binary modules which actually need to be rebuilt...
>  
Well, we don't have a way of detecting which are binary modules and
which aren't, so far as I know.

Also, assuming packages are following the guidelines, they should all
at least have the %{__nodejs} -e 'require("./")' test enabled, so we
can at least find out if there are any Node.js modules that cannot
even load.

[Igor Raits]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 08:02 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>  On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 6:03 PM Tom Hughes <tom(a)compton.nu&gt;
> wrote:
>  > On 08/05/2020 21:18, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>  > > On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 6:26 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  > > wrote:
>  > > > On 01. 05. 20 22:21, Ben Cotton wrote:
>  > > > > * Proposal owners:
>  > > > > The packages are already built for Fedora 33 in a non-default 
>  > > > > module
>  > > > > stream. On June 14th, 2020, the nodejs-14.x packages will
>  > > > > become the
>  > > > > default in Fedora 33 (either by making the 14.x module stream
>  > > > > be the
>  > > > > default stream or by rebuilding the packages as non-modular,
>  > > > > depending
>  > > > > on other factors).
>  > > > 
>  > > > Will there be an attempted mass rebuild of the dependent
>  > > > packages?
>  > > 
>  > > We're going to request a side-tag and rebuild all of the `nodejs-
>  > > *`
>  > > packages. Anything that fails will need to have an FTBFS bug
>  > > filed.
>  > 
>  > Why? We're never done that for Node.js upgrades before, and it's
>  > only the binary modules which actually need to be rebuilt...
>  > 
>  
>  Well, we don't have a way of detecting which are binary modules and
>  which aren't, so far as I know.
>  
>  Also, assuming packages are following the guidelines, they should all
>  at least have the %{__nodejs} -e 'require("./")' test enabled, so we
>  can at least find out if there are any Node.js modules that cannot
>  even load. 
Note that double-underscores inside macro names is considered a bad
idea. For user-facing macros, there should not be any underscores.

>  _______________________________________________
>  devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: 
>  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: 
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives: 
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail] 
- -- 
Igor Raits <ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEcwgJ58gsbV5f5dMcEV1auJxcHh4FAl65QkEACgkQEV1auJxc
> Hh4zJw//W3hBhheAD3MOJSQE8F+11FvhSWoawUEjzPrehlUcmyAZcYyk+3eCx1X/
> t0HIVDSVF4XcBzVsWRqey+1lC5/r23xzPTV2it/Tx5IoXE8r79HxuPYbvEmOevDm
> WnmhaiR55OF4BjobLGqoGbHa+kQc1935eTKWXNgedgKW/5tCLs8G+pQ1qzxSqfvn
> 8MsMuhOGUHAZnGCKDeZozlt4bEeU9P6H8OqDz3alDon0fXhuoUL3viuQRl5wNQ3g
> JZcVzAXm3gE6sNjcxoIE+yWUi9uFg5tsjjwNE+1c1txAXxETHSpWa9El++ugnncn
> Y4XA/IHwAh7nMmBssENJ0T9VUpheQVqkVPg3jK2RqOxW+7BU8RQNCQ5TTorfE/Fd
> ixmQlOZV6zuYU+K9on9huKZyeosOLTznDPr8TC7+Y+mr4hkhAfod6P5v7YKU9N4W
> 2MLdd7eqDENI3UGgBvcWopPHTOTOC4gUrZl+5BktMKWQDS6A4G9rzYwKd2EMINiD
> oJ6qiq8XgAFO46G5hswJoEPc388MqpHuzfJp0Y74ye/LbbubVRLpb3XP9DStyhil
> GNs/43pvStLQFiNMBB6XYJCz2LG6McMCId42/0+RYpvINDkJ9Ze1qnOba2EQnF/P
> TlM53VkTVgkAEDPGwEXNk0t/B/MXJmfCaxIJHCm1dlf718Zxubg=
> =DF5+
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Tom Hughes]

On 11/05/2020 13:02, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>  On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 6:03 PM Tom Hughes <tom(a)compton.nu&gt;
> wrote:
> >
> > On 08/05/2020 21:18, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >> On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 6:26 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 01. 05. 20 22:21, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >>>> * Proposal owners:
> >>>> The packages are already built for Fedora 33 in a non-default module
> >>>> stream. On June 14th, 2020, the nodejs-14.x packages will become the
> >>>> default in Fedora 33 (either by making the 14.x module stream be the
> >>>> default stream or by rebuilding the packages as non-modular, depending
> >>>> on other factors).
> >>>
> >>> Will there be an attempted mass rebuild of the dependent packages?
> >>
> >> We're going to request a side-tag and rebuild all of the `nodejs-*`
> >> packages. Anything that fails will need to have an FTBFS bug filed.
> >
> > Why? We're never done that for Node.js upgrades before, and it's
> > only the binary modules which actually need to be rebuilt...
> >
>  
>  Well, we don't have a way of detecting which are binary modules and
>  which aren't, so far as I know. 
I have a list in the script I normally use to rebuild them.

>  Also, assuming packages are following the guidelines, they should
> all
>  at least have the %{__nodejs} -e 'require("./")' test enabled, so we
>  can at least find out if there are any Node.js modules that cannot
>  even load. 
Excuse me while I try and stop laughing.

I guess it will get of a few hundred more node modules anyway
which is something.

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes (tom(a)compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/