Unless we decide to go the "both lts versions" path, I'd update nodejs.
I see no point in having packages, that are unmaintained by upstream, in
the repo.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen John Smoogen" <smooge(a)gmail.com>
To: "EPEL Development List" <epel-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
Cc: "Zuzana Svetlikova" <zsvetlik(a)redhat.com>, epel-devel-list(a)redhat.com,
epel-devel(a)fedoraproject.org
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 6:11:14 PM
Subject: Re: [EPEL-devel] Re: nodejs update
On 11 August 2016 at 07:43, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> tl;dr Need to update nodejs, but can't decide if v4 or v6,
> v4: will update sooner, shorter support (2018-04-01)
> v6: longer support (2019-04-01), *might* break more things,
> won't be in stable sooner than mid-October if everything
> goes well
FYI, I think this tl;dr missed explaining why v6 won't be in stable until
mid-October. What Zuzana and I discussed on another list is that the Node.js v6
schedule has it going into LTS mode on the same day that 0.10.x reaches EOL.
However, v6 is already out and available. The major thing that changes at that
point is just that from then on, they commit to adding no more major features
(as I understand it). This is the best moment for us to switch over to it.
However, in the meantime we will probably want to be carrying 6.x in
updates-testing for at least a month prior to declaring it stable (with
autokarma disabled) with wide announcements about the impending upgrade. This
will be safe to do since Node.js 6.x has already reached a point where no
backwards-incompatible changes are allowed in, so we can start the migration
process early.
How will the packages be named? Are we doing this as nodejs6 or nodejs?
--
Stephen J Smoogen.