Default NodeJS stream packages with versioned names are not available

[Jan Staněk]

Hello all,
recently, when trying to spin up a CI for NodeJS in Fedora, I ran into a
slight problem: when a NodeJS stream is the default one, versioned
packages (i.e. nodejs20) are not generated and are not installable.

For example, on current rawhide, I cannot install `nodejs20` package,
only `nodejs`; this will give me the version 20.x as expected.
The problem is that this complicates the CI setup,
and requires me to take into account which Fedora I'm currently on.

As an example, when adding tests for nodejs20 dist-git[1],
I would like to simply specify `requires: nodejs20` into the test
metadata. However, with the current setup, I would need something akin
to the following (pseudocode, I did not really test if that would work):

    requires:
        - {% if fedora == 40 %}nodejs{% else %}nodejs20{% fi %}

In addition to being more complicated, this will also break if the
default stream for a given Fedora version ever change
(which is not unlikely to happen, as the upstream release schedule
is not really synchronized with the Fedore one).

---

I recall that the current status is the result of already existing
long discussion, with associated debugging, so I would like to have this
solved with as minimal disruption as possible. That being said,
what is the reason for having the non-versioned packages (`nodejs`) *in
stead* of the versioned ones (`nodejs20`), as opposed to *in addition*
to them?

The non-versioned packages could then require the appropriate versioned
ones and contain only symlinks (/usr/bin/node → /usr/bin/node-20,
/usr/lib/node_modules → /usr/lib/node_modules_20, etc.).

Let me know what you think!
Best regards,
--
Jan Staněk
Software Engineer, Red Hat
jstanek(a)redhat.com   irc: jstanek

[Miro Hrončok]

On 20. 03. 24 17:35, Jan Staněk wrote:
>  Hello all,
>  recently, when trying to spin up a CI for NodeJS in Fedora, I ran into a
>  slight problem: when a NodeJS stream is the default one, versioned
>  packages (i.e. nodejs20) are not generated and are not installable.
>  
>  For example, on current rawhide, I cannot install `nodejs20` package,
>  only `nodejs`; this will give me the version 20.x as expected.
>  The problem is that this complicates the CI setup,
>  and requires me to take into account which Fedora I'm currently on.
>  
>  As an example, when adding tests for nodejs20 dist-git[1],
>  I would like to simply specify `requires: nodejs20` into the test
>  metadata. However, with the current setup, I would need something akin
>  to the following (pseudocode, I did not really test if that would work):
>  
>       requires:
>           - {% if fedora == 40 %}nodejs{% else %}nodejs20{% fi %}
>  
>  In addition to being more complicated, this will also break if the
>  default stream for a given Fedora version ever change
>  (which is not unlikely to happen, as the upstream release schedule
>  is not really synchronized with the Fedore one).
>  
>  ---
>  
>  I recall that the current status is the result of already existing
>  long discussion, with associated debugging, so I would like to have this
>  solved with as minimal disruption as possible. That being said,
>  what is the reason for having the non-versioned packages (`nodejs`) *in
>  stead* of the versioned ones (`nodejs20`), as opposed to *in addition*
>  to them?
>  
>  The non-versioned packages could then require the appropriate versioned
>  ones and contain only symlinks (/usr/bin/node → /usr/bin/node-20,
>  /usr/lib/node_modules → /usr/lib/node_modules_20, etc.). 
Python does this similarly to nodejs (we have python3.11, pytohn3, python3.13 
in rawhide today), with one difference. The python3 package provides 
python3.12. So when you do:

      requires:
          - python3.12

It just works.

I believe nodejs should provide nodejs20, the same way.

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

[Jan Staněk]

Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; writes:
>  Python does this similarly to nodejs (we have python3.11, pytohn3,
>  python3.13 in rawhide today), with one difference. The python3 package
>  provides python3.12. So when you do:
>
>       requires:
>           - python3.12
>
>  It just works.
>
>  I believe nodejs should provide nodejs20, the same way. 
Thanks for the suggestion, I did not think about provides at all
when mulling over the problem. Kudos!
--
Jan Staněk
Software Engineer, Red Hat
jstanek(a)redhat.com   irc: jstanek

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 12:35 PM Jan Staněk <jstanek(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Hello all,
>  recently, when trying to spin up a CI for NodeJS in Fedora, I ran into a
>  slight problem: when a NodeJS stream is the default one, versioned
>  packages (i.e. nodejs20) are not generated and are not installable.
>
>  For example, on current rawhide, I cannot install `nodejs20` package,
>  only `nodejs`; this will give me the version 20.x as expected.
>  The problem is that this complicates the CI setup,
>  and requires me to take into account which Fedora I'm currently on.
>
>  As an example, when adding tests for nodejs20 dist-git[1],
>  I would like to simply specify `requires: nodejs20` into the test
>  metadata. However, with the current setup, I would need something akin
>  to the following (pseudocode, I did not really test if that would work):
>
>      requires:
>          - {% if fedora == 40 %}nodejs{% else %}nodejs20{% fi %}
>
>  In addition to being more complicated, this will also break if the
>  default stream for a given Fedora version ever change
>  (which is not unlikely to happen, as the upstream release schedule
>  is not really synchronized with the Fedore one).
>  
The default version is fixed for the life of each Fedora release. It
works out fine, because we always use whichever is the most recent LTS
release that will be supported through the life of that Fedora
release.

That said, I agree that it's completely reasonable to have the default
version also `Provides: nodejsXX` and I'll look into it.


>  ---
>
>  I recall that the current status is the result of already existing
>  long discussion, with associated debugging, so I would like to have this
>  solved with as minimal disruption as possible. That being said,
>  what is the reason for having the non-versioned packages (`nodejs`) *in
>  stead* of the versioned ones (`nodejs20`), as opposed to *in addition*
>  to them? 
I'm confused; it *is* in addition to the versioned ones. We just don't
duplicate the default version because it would be a complete waste.

>  The non-versioned packages could then require the appropriate
> versioned
>  ones and contain only symlinks (/usr/bin/node → /usr/bin/node-20,
>  /usr/lib/node_modules → /usr/lib/node_modules_20, etc.). 
The overly-simplified answer here is mainly that there are too many
symlinks to maintain for this to be practical.

[Jan Staněk]

Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt; writes:
>  That said, I agree that it's completely reasonable to have the
> default
>  version also `Provides: nodejsXX` and I'll look into it. 
Provides is something I did not consider at all, and it looks like the
easiest way forward! Let me know when you get around to it;
alternatively, I can throw together a package PR.

>  I'm confused; it *is* in addition to the versioned ones. We just
> don't
>  duplicate the default version because it would be a complete waste. 
I meant having both versioned and unversioned packages for the *same*
(default) stream available. Probably really overkill if the provides
works.

>  The overly-simplified answer here is mainly that there are too many
>  symlinks to maintain for this to be practical. 
Acknowledged; thanks for info.

--
Jan Staněk
Software Engineer, Red Hat
jstanek(a)redhat.com   irc: jstanek

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 6:28 AM Jan Staněk <jstanek(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt; writes:
>  > That said, I agree that it's completely reasonable to have the default
>  > version also `Provides: nodejsXX` and I'll look into it.
>
>  Provides is something I did not consider at all, and it looks like the
>  easiest way forward! Let me know when you get around to it;
>  alternatively, I can throw together a package PR.
>  

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nodejs20/pull-request/11

 I haven’t had time to properly test upgrades with that patch yet, so I’d
appreciate it if you could review the patch and help with upgrade testing.