I'd be interested in some of the scenarios above, but where a version of
Node.js higher than the default has been installed.
For example I install nodejs v20 (F37's default Node is v18, but v20 is now
available). I then run `dnf upgrade` what happens?
Overall what you describe seems more familiar to me in terms of how to
manage versions/multiple copies of a component on linux.
One of question is if it would be possible to warn people or require a
--force flag if people install EOL versions, even if it is the default for
the Fedora version. I understand we always want to allow people to stick
to the version that came with a Fedora/RHEL version but I think we could do
more to help them avoid accidentally use an EOL verion.
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 12:39 PM Troy Dawson <tdawson(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 8:48 AM Stephen Gallagher
<sgallagh(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> tl;dr: I want to drop the Node.js modules and make Node available as
> parallel-installable interpreters (with /usr/bin/node managed by the
> alternatives subsystem).
>
> For some time now, I've been looking at ways to improve our Node.js
> story to make it more maintainable. Modules seemed like a Good Idea at
> the Time™, but it has been difficult to maintain over the years. I'd
> like to propose that we abandon Modules as our strategy and instead
> move to parallel-installable packages. I've been quietly working on a
> proof-of-concept for this for a while now and it's finally in
> good-enough shape[1] that I can share it with you.
>
> The change involves several key pieces:
>
> 1. The NPM package is no longer delivered as a subpackage of Node.js.
> We return to maintaining it as a separate package in Fedora.[2]
> 2. We ship the Node.js interpreter as `/usr/bin/node-$MAJOR` and use
> the alternatives[3] subsystem to maintain the `/usr/bin/node` symlink.
> 3. We configure the alternatives priority system such that newer
> versions of Node are preferred, with the exception of the version
> selected as the default for that Fedora release which will always be
> preferred over any other, if multiple versions are installed.
>
> Some examples:
> On Fedora 37, the `nodejs` package is not installed (F37's default Node
> is v18).
> A `dnf install nodejs` would result in the `nodejs18` package being
> installed. This package would provide `/usr/bin/node `as a symlink to
> `/usr/bin/node-18`. A user could also `dnf install nodejs16`, which
> would provide the `/usr/bin/node-16` binary. This would not change the
> symlink for `/usr/bin/node`.
>
> On Fedora 37, the `nodejs` package is not installed (F37's default Node
> is v18).
> A `dnf install nodejs16` would result in the `nodejs16` package being
> installed. This package would provide `/usr/bin/node` as a symlink to
> `/usr/bin/node-16`. A user could also install `nodejs-18`, which
> would provide the `/usr/bin/node-18` binary. Because Node.js v18 is
> the default for Fedora 37, this would result in the `/usr/bin/node`
> symlink being changed to point at `/usr/bin/node-18`.
>
> On Fedora 37, the existing `nodejs` package is installed (F37's
> default Node is v18).
> A `dnf upgrade` would result in the `nodejs-18` package being
> installed, replacing `nodejs`. This package would provide
> `/usr/bin/node `as a symlink to `/usr/bin/node-18`. A user could also
> install `nodejs-16`, which would provide the `/usr/bin/node-16`
> binary. This would not change the symlink for `/usr/bin/node`.
>
>
>
> Some benefits to this approach:
> * With parallel-install, it becomes possible to run test suites
> against multiple major versions at the same time. For example, the NPM
> package will be able[4] to run its suite against v16 and v18 to ensure
> that it is compatible with both versions.
> * The complexities of the Module build would go away.
>
> Some risks to this approach:
> * If Node.js dependencies like libuv or libnghttp2 make incompatible
> changes that cannot work with both older and newer Node.js releases,
> we will need to create compat- packages for them.
>
>
>
> [1]
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sgallagh/nodejs-alternatives/
> [2]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075170
> [3]
>
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Alternatives/
> [4]
>
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sgallagh/nodejs-altern...
>
You've already answered everything I was going to ask about this.
I just want to say I like this plan.
Troy
_______________________________________________
nodejs mailing list -- nodejs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to nodejs-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/nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue