Future of v8 and node in fedora

[Tomas Hrcka]

Hello fedora noders,

at first I want to thank you for great amount of work you did to get 
node to fedora. Good job!

I am poking around nodejs and v8 for few months, and there are few 
things... Is there a reason why do we have this old version of v8 in 
fedora? I know that stable branch of node is using it. But 0.10.* 
releases should run well also on newer v8. I started rewrite of v8.spec 
to use gyp and new stable release of v8, once finished I will publish it 
for review (since I am new to packaging this may take some time).

Why do we have stable release of node in fedora? I know its stable, but 
we are devs distro should we have latest nodejs that is out there? 
People are using 0.11 branch for development despite the fact that it is 
not stable.

I am offering my help here with both v8 and/or node and its modules so 
if you have too much packages feel free to add me as co-maintainer and I 
will do my best so we can deliver great distro with latest nodejs and 
modules.

-- 
Tomas Hrcka
Software Engineer - Developer Experience

[Matthias Runge]

On 26/09/13 10:21, Tomas Hrcka wrote:
>  Hello fedora noders,
>  
>  at first I want to thank you for great amount of work you did to get
>  node to fedora. Good job!
>  
>  I am poking around nodejs and v8 for few months, and there are few
>  things... Is there a reason why do we have this old version of v8 in
>  fedora? I know that stable branch of node is using it. But 0.10.*
>  releases should run well also on newer v8. I started rewrite of v8.spec
>  to use gyp and new stable release of v8, once finished I will publish it
>  for review (since I am new to packaging this may take some time).
>  
>  Why do we have stable release of node in fedora? I know its stable, but
>  we are devs distro should we have latest nodejs that is out there?
>  People are using 0.11 branch for development despite the fact that it is
>  not stable.
>  
>  I am offering my help here with both v8 and/or node and its modules so
>  if you have too much packages feel free to add me as co-maintainer and I
>  will do my best so we can deliver great distro with latest nodejs and
>  modules.
>   
Just very short: there is no need to put an updated v8.spec up for
review (if you don't want to make a version to be installed in parallel
to the older one).

Regarding using a development version of software foo in Fedora, I
thought it's discouraged to do so. Sadly, I can't find the reference to
it in the wiki.
Especially, we need to take care not to break compatibility during
updates, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy

Matthias

[Stephen Gallagher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09/26/2013 04:35 AM, Matthias Runge wrote:
>  On 26/09/13 10:21, Tomas Hrcka wrote:
> > Hello fedora noders,
> > 
> > at first I want to thank you for great amount of work you did to
> > get node to fedora. Good job!
> > 
> > I am poking around nodejs and v8 for few months, and there are
> > few things... Is there a reason why do we have this old version
> > of v8 in fedora? I know that stable branch of node is using it.
> > But 0.10.* releases should run well also on newer v8. I started
> > rewrite of v8.spec to use gyp and new stable release of v8, once
> > finished I will publish it for review (since I am new to
> > packaging this may take some time).
> > 
> > Why do we have stable release of node in fedora? I know its
> > stable, but we are devs distro should we have latest nodejs that
> > is out there? People are using 0.11 branch for development
> > despite the fact that it is not stable.
> > 
> > I am offering my help here with both v8 and/or node and its
> > modules so if you have too much packages feel free to add me as
> > co-maintainer and I will do my best so we can deliver great
> > distro with latest nodejs and modules.
> > 
>  Just very short: there is no need to put an updated v8.spec up for 
>  review (if you don't want to make a version to be installed in
>  parallel to the older one).
>  
>  Regarding using a development version of software foo in Fedora, I 
>  thought it's discouraged to do so. Sadly, I can't find the
>  reference to it in the wiki. Especially, we need to take care not
>  to break compatibility during updates, see
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
>   
If we have it on good authority that 0.12.0 will be released in time
for (or near after) the release of Fedora 21, I have no problem with
upgrading the copy in Rawhide to use 0.11.x.

The reason we need a stable version of Node.js in the release is that
we're treating it like a standard runtime (i.e. Java JRE or Python or
Ruby runtimes). These can't change API/ABI compatibility within a
Fedora release or it can negatively affect all packages that depend on
it (and with Node.js, that's at least dozens).


Alternately, we could start maintaining a COPR repo for development
versions of Node.js. That might be the best approach, as it allows us
to keep a stable release in the base install. If you want to produce a
set of SRPMs for v8, libuv, Node.js, npm and the set of nodejs-*
packages necessary to accomplish this, I'll create a COPR build system
for f19 and F20 (I think we can reasonably abandon F18 at this point
for development versions).
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlJEIR8ACgkQeiVVYja6o6MACwCeIRRlRMY2vtjR1wVKK/Dz+AmC
> sw0AoKEVwxN2wr1tAC3tmX+Tc2Q7BoCE
> =HNBn
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Tomas Hrcka]

On 09/26/2013 01:57 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>
>  On 09/26/2013 04:35 AM, Matthias Runge wrote:
> > On 26/09/13 10:21, Tomas Hrcka wrote:
> >> Hello fedora noders,
> >>
> >> at first I want to thank you for great amount of work you did to
> >> get node to fedora. Good job!
> >>
> >> I am poking around nodejs and v8 for few months, and there are
> >> few things... Is there a reason why do we have this old version
> >> of v8 in fedora? I know that stable branch of node is using it.
> >> But 0.10.* releases should run well also on newer v8. I started
> >> rewrite of v8.spec to use gyp and new stable release of v8, once
> >> finished I will publish it for review (since I am new to
> >> packaging this may take some time).
> >>
> >> Why do we have stable release of node in fedora? I know its
> >> stable, but we are devs distro should we have latest nodejs that
> >> is out there? People are using 0.11 branch for development
> >> despite the fact that it is not stable.
> >>
> >> I am offering my help here with both v8 and/or node and its
> >> modules so if you have too much packages feel free to add me as
> >> co-maintainer and I will do my best so we can deliver great
> >> distro with latest nodejs and modules.
> >>
> > Just very short: there is no need to put an updated v8.spec up for
> > review (if you don't want to make a version to be installed in
> > parallel to the older one).
> >
> > Regarding using a development version of software foo in Fedora, I
> > thought it's discouraged to do so. Sadly, I can't find the
> > reference to it in the wiki. Especially, we need to take care not
> > to break compatibility during updates, see
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
> >
>  If we have it on good authority that 0.12.0 will be released in time
>  for (or near after) the release of Fedora 21, I have no problem with
>  upgrading the copy in Rawhide to use 0.11.x.
>
>  The reason we need a stable version of Node.js in the release is that
>  we're treating it like a standard runtime (i.e. Java JRE or Python or
>  Ruby runtimes). These can't change API/ABI compatibility within a
>  Fedora release or it can negatively affect all packages that depend on
>  it (and with Node.js, that's at least dozens).
>
>
>  Alternately, we could start maintaining a COPR repo for development
>  versions of Node.js. That might be the best approach, as it allows us
>  to keep a stable release in the base install. If you want to produce a
>  set of SRPMs for v8, libuv, Node.js, npm and the set of nodejs-*
>  packages necessary to accomplish this, I'll create a COPR build system
>  for f19 and F20 (I think we can reasonably abandon F18 at this point
>  for development versions).
> >  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >  Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
> >  Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> >
> >  iEYEARECAAYFAlJEIR8ACgkQeiVVYja6o6MACwCeIRRlRMY2vtjR1wVKK/Dz+AmC
> >  sw0AoKEVwxN2wr1tAC3tmX+Tc2Q7BoCE
> >  =HNBn
> >  -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
>  _______________________________________________
>  nodejs mailing list
>  nodejs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/nodejs 
COPR approach seems to be
the best way here so if you can create it I 
will be really happy to maintain it on latest dev versions of nodejs and 
related packages for f19 and f20.  But there is still question about V8 
in fedora, current version in fedora is 3.14.5 and stable version is 
3.20.12, am I missing something here or its 'it works don't touch it 
syndrome'?


-- 
Tomas Hrcka
Software Engineer - Developer Experience

[Stephen Gallagher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09/26/2013 08:46 AM, Tomas Hrcka wrote:
>  COPR approach seems to be the best way here so if you can create it
>  I will be really happy to maintain it on latest dev versions of
>  nodejs and related packages for f19 and f20.  But there is still
>  question about V8 in fedora, current version in fedora is 3.14.5
>  and stable version is 3.20.12, am I missing something here or its
>  'it works don't touch it syndrome'?
>  
>   

We're carrying the same version in Fedora that Node.js upstream is
bundling. The newer versions *do not work*, because Google provides no
ABI compatibility between v8 minor releases. So it's not just "it
works don't touch it syndrome" but instead "the upgrade is known not
to work". We maintain it for bugfixes and security issues, but that's
about all we can do.

I'll handle creation of the COPR if someone wants to put together the
SRPMs, but I'm more than a little swamped over the next week.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlJEL3kACgkQeiVVYja6o6OkNACgqvm0vApkGZBIp1q2eM62ZZtw
> R3EAni6MGKGX0DzwwiuwicZZn/ugT5CJ
> =dF64
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Troy Dawson]

On 09/26/2013 03:35 AM, Matthias Runge wrote:
>  On 26/09/13 10:21, Tomas Hrcka wrote:
> > Hello fedora noders,
> >
> > at first I want to thank you for great amount of work you did to get
> > node to fedora. Good job!
> >
> > I am poking around nodejs and v8 for few months, and there are few
> > things... Is there a reason why do we have this old version of v8 in
> > fedora? I know that stable branch of node is using it. But 0.10.*
> > releases should run well also on newer v8. I started rewrite of v8.spec
> > to use gyp and new stable release of v8, once finished I will publish it
> > for review (since I am new to packaging this may take some time).
> >
> > Why do we have stable release of node in fedora? I know its stable, but
> > we are devs distro should we have latest nodejs that is out there?
> > People are using 0.11 branch for development despite the fact that it is
> > not stable.
> >
> > I am offering my help here with both v8 and/or node and its modules so
> > if you have too much packages feel free to add me as co-maintainer and I
> > will do my best so we can deliver great distro with latest nodejs and
> > modules.
> >
>  Just very short: there is no need to put an updated v8.spec up for
>  review (if you don't want to make a version to be installed in parallel
>  to the older one).
>
>  Regarding using a development version of software foo in Fedora, I
>  thought it's discouraged to do so. Sadly, I can't find the reference to
>  it in the wiki.
>  Especially, we need to take care not to break compatibility during
>  updates, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
>
>  Matthias
>  
About updating v8, please be careful with that, and only do it on rawhide.
node.js isn't the only thing that uses v8. v8 was in Fedora, and being 
used by different programs before node.js.
As one of the mongodb maintainers, I know that if you update v8, without 
us rebuilding mongodb, mongodb will completely break.  I don't mind 
doing that in rawhide, but with the rest of the stable fedora releases 
it isn't fun.
Troy

[T.C. Hollingsworth]

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Tomas Hrcka <thrcka(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Hello fedora noders,
>
>  at first I want to thank you for great amount of work you did to get node to
>  fedora. Good job!
>
>  I am poking around nodejs and v8 for few months, and there are few things...
>  Is there a reason why do we have this old version of v8 in fedora? I know
>  that stable branch of node is using it. But 0.10.* releases should run well
>  also on newer v8. 
Everyone's mostly covered this already, but I just wanted to add that actually
0.10.x won't run on newer v8 at all; there are huge API changes:
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/nodejs/VlUJ68n6QBg‎

Not only did nodejs require changes but virtually every C extension module will
also be broken.  Upstream is working on a new C extension interface that will
prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future (because everyone knows
it will).

0.12 is going to be a huge growing pain for the community at large; us rushing
into it will not help anyone.

>  I started rewrite of v8.spec to use gyp and new stable
>  release of v8, once finished I will publish it for review (since I am new to
>  packaging this may take some time). 
I'd be very happy to see v8 converted to gyp, but in Rawhide only.  It's
something that I've been meaning to do but never got around to, since what we
have does work for now and rebuilding all v8-dependents just for this seemed
like unnecessary work.  But there are a couple other things on my wish list that
require a native module rebuild (like flipping http-parser to use the upstream
SONAME setting instead of my patch), so I'd be willing to go for it now.

If it helps, I converted it ages ago when I was still maintaining it in a third-
party repo.  That old SRPM is here:
http://patches.fedorapeople.org/oldnode/unstable/f17/SRPMS/v8-3.9.23-1.fc...

Of course, years later I noticed a couple flaws in that packaging right off the
bat.  (Specifically, the %{arm} macro needs to be used in ExclusiveArch and the
stuff in %{_bindir} belongs in devel.)

-T.C.

[Tomas Hrcka]

On 09/26/2013 04:19 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
>  On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Tomas Hrcka
> <thrcka(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
> > Hello fedora noders,
> >
> > at first I want to thank you for great amount of work you did to get node to
> > fedora. Good job!
> >
> > I am poking around nodejs and v8 for few months, and there are few things...
> > Is there a reason why do we have this old version of v8 in fedora? I know
> > that stable branch of node is using it. But 0.10.* releases should run well
> > also on newer v8.
>  Everyone's mostly covered this already, but I just wanted to add that actually
>  0.10.x won't run on newer v8 at all; there are huge API changes:
>  https://groups.google.com/d/topic/nodejs/VlUJ68n6QBg‎
>
>  Not only did nodejs require changes but virtually every C extension module will
>  also be broken.  Upstream is working on a new C extension interface that will
>  prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future (because everyone knows
>  it will). 
Ok,  I am aware of API/ABI changes in v8. But I was able to run hello 
world on stable node and never v8 (not current stable). I wasn't 
thinking about C extensions and now I see that could be a problem.
>  0.12 is going to be a huge growing pain for the community at large; us rushing
>  into it will not help anyone. 
Yes, but truth is that most of enthusiasts using node
js use latest 
versions everywhere. Lot of people I talked to, this summer on web 
related events where disapointed that fedora/epel doesn't have those 
packages in latest upstream versions. But I will fix this with COPR repo 
and provide latest upstream node for fedora.
> > I started rewrite of v8.spec to use gyp and new stable
> > release of v8, once finished I will publish it for review (since I am new to
> > packaging this may take some time).
>  I'd be very happy to see v8 converted to gyp, but in Rawhide only.  It's
>  something that I've been meaning to do but never got around to, since what we
>  have does work for now and rebuilding all v8-dependents just for this seemed
>  like unnecessary work.  But there are a couple other things on my wish list that
>  require a native module rebuild (like flipping http-parser to use the upstream
>  SONAME setting instead of my patch), so I'd be willing to go for it now.
>
>  If it helps, I converted it ages ago when I was still maintaining it in a third-
>  party repo.  That old SRPM is here:
>  http://patches.fedorapeople.org/oldnode/unstable/f17/SRPMS/v8-3.9.23-1.fc...
Thanks for this I will provide srpm when ready. The package will 
probably need some experienced pair of eyes just to check if I didn't 
break stuff...
>  Of course, years later I noticed a couple flaws in that packaging right off the
>  bat.  (Specifically, the %{arm} macro needs to be used in ExclusiveArch and the
>  stuff in %{_bindir} belongs in devel.)
>
>  -T.C.
>  _______________________________________________
>  nodejs mailing list
>  nodejs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/nodejs 

-- 
Tomas Hrcka
Software Engineer - Developer Experience