sntp

[Tom Hughes]

So we have a load more broken dependencies because sntp 2.x has been 
pushed in rawhide but it requires nodejs 4.x.

It seems it really does require 4.x as it uses various "harmony" 
features, some of which don't even work under node 0.10 even with -harmony.

Piotr - did you intend to build it in the side tag? or did you just not 
realise it needed node 4?

Tom

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

[Piotr Popieluch]

On 12/13/2015 06:12 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
>  So we have a load more broken dependencies because sntp 2.x has been
>  pushed in rawhide but it requires nodejs 4.x.
>  
>  It seems it really does require 4.x as it uses various "harmony"
>  features, some of which don't even work under node 0.10 even with -harmony.
>  
>  Piotr - did you intend to build it in the side tag? or did you just not
>  realise it needed node 4? 
No this is by accident. I don't know how I could miss
this as I did
think about checking this, I even did not push some other modules
because of this reason. Excuse me for the mess.

What is the progress on 4.x? Should I downgrade sntp to 1.0.9 or wait
for 4.x?

Piotr

[Tom Hughes]

On 13/12/15 21:20, Piotr Popieluch wrote:
>  On 12/13/2015 06:12 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > So we have a load more broken dependencies because sntp 2.x has been
> > pushed in rawhide but it requires nodejs 4.x.
> >
> > It seems it really does require 4.x as it uses various "harmony"
> > features, some of which don't even work under node 0.10 even with -harmony.
> >
> > Piotr - did you intend to build it in the side tag? or did you just not
> > realise it needed node 4?
>  No this is by accident. I don't know how I could miss this as I did
>  think about checking this, I even did not push some other modules
>  because of this reason. Excuse me for the mess.
>
>  What is the progress on 4.x? Should I downgrade sntp to 1.0.9 or wait
>  for 4.x? 
Well 4.x is working and the binary modules are all rebuilt now I think.

The remaining issue is updating the npm stack I think?

Maybe we should untag that build from rawhide for now and build it in 
the side tag instead?

Tom

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

[Jared K. Smith]

On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Tom Hughes <tom(a)compton.nu&gt; wrote:

>  The remaining issue is updating the npm stack I think?
>  
Yes, that that's going to take quite a bit of work... Every time I sit down
to try to tackle more of the dependencies, I end up losing a bit of my
sanity.  I'll try to take some time this week to document the problems I'm
running into, and maybe brighter minds than mine can figure out some of the
issues.


>  Maybe we should untag that build from rawhide for now and build it in the
>  side tag instead?
>  
I think that sounds like a good plan.

--
Jared Smith

[Stephen Gallagher]

>  On Dec 13, 2015, at 8:25 PM, Jared K. Smith
> <jsmith(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  
>  
> > On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Tom Hughes <tom(a)compton.nu&gt; wrote:
> > The remaining issue is updating the npm stack I think?
>  
>  Yes, that that's going to take quite a bit of work... Every time I sit down to try to
> tackle more of the dependencies, I end up losing a bit of my sanity.  I'll try to take
> some time this week to document the problems I'm running into, and maybe brighter
> minds than mine can figure out some of the issues.
>   
> > 
> > Maybe we should untag that build from rawhide for now and build it in the side tag
> instead?
>  
>  I think that sounds like a good plan.
>   

Unfortunately, it's too late for an untag since it has hit the mirrors. The right move
here is probably an epoch-bump downgrade to unbreak Rawhide. 

>  --
>  Jared Smith
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  nodejs mailing list
>  nodejs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail]

[Tom Hughes]

On 14/12/15 01:25, Jared K. Smith wrote:

>  Yes, that that's going to take quite a bit of work... Every time
> I sit
>  down to try to tackle more of the dependencies, I end up losing a bit of
>  my sanity.  I'll try to take some time this week to document the
>  problems I'm running into, and maybe brighter minds than mine can figure
>  out some of the issues. 
So I did "npm install npm" and then listed the contents of all the 
node_modules directories in the result tree, deduplicated them, and 
tried to install them all in rawhide and these are the missing ones:

aproba
are-we-there-yet
array-index
balanced-match
brace-expansion
builtin-modules
concat-map
delegates
escape-string-regexp
foo
gauge
graceful-readlink
has-ansi
has-unicode
iferr
imurmurhash
is-absolute
is-builtin-module
is-relative
jju
json-parse-helpfulerror
os-homedir
path-array
read-cmd-shim
readdir-scoped-modules
read-package-tree
realize-package-specifier
sorted-object
spdx-correct
spdx-exceptions
spdx-expression-parse
unique-filename
unique-slug
validate-npm-package-license

There may be others which need updating to newer versions, but this is a 
start at least.

Tom

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

[Piotr Popieluch]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:27 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt;
wrote:

>  On Dec 13, 2015, at 8:25 PM, Jared K. Smith <jsmith(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
>  wrote:
>
>
>  On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Tom Hughes <tom(a)compton.nu&gt; wrote:
>
> > The remaining issue is updating the npm stack I think?
> >
>
>  Yes, that that's going to take quite a bit of work... Every time I sit
>  down to try to tackle more of the dependencies, I end up losing a bit of my
>  sanity.  I'll try to take some time this week to document the problems I'm
>  running into, and maybe brighter minds than mine can figure out some of the
>  issues.
>
>  I'm glad I'm not the only one feeling this way. As careful I am trying to
be I still end up overlooking some dependency. I wonder if it would be
possible to reuse the code from taskotron depcheck, or from the koji
depcheck to have a local depency check which could be run before pushing to
rawhide.

> >
> > Maybe we should untag that build from rawhide for now and build it in the
> > side tag instead?
> >
>
>  I think that sounds like a good plan.
>
>
>
>  Unfortunately, it's too late for an untag since it has hit the mirrors.
>  The right move here is probably an epoch-bump downgrade to unbreak Rawhide.
>  
Just did this.

[Tom Hughes]

On 14/12/15 08:05, Piotr Popieluch wrote:

>  I'm glad I'm not the only one feeling this way. As careful I
> am trying
>  to be I still end up overlooking some dependency. I wonder if it would
>  be possible to reuse the code from taskotron depcheck, or from the koji
>  depcheck to have a local depency check which could be run before pushing
>  to rawhide. 
I was thinking about this last night, and much of the problem comes from 
modules where for one reason or another we don't have the tests enabled.

It struck me that, in most cases, and at least with the recent issues 
with both argparse and sntp, even just a simple attempt to load the 
module would have caught them.

So my proposal is that if there are no proper tests, or we are not 
currently able to enable them, then a simple %check along these lines 
should be included:

%{__nodejs} -e 'require("./")'

It won't catch everything because sometimes a dependency is only loaded 
when a particular feature is used, but in most cases they are loaded 
unconditionally when the module is loaded.

Tom

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

[Stephen Gallagher]

>  On Dec 14, 2015, at 4:10 AM, Tom Hughes <tom(a)compton.nu&gt;
> wrote:
>  
> > On 14/12/15 08:05, Piotr Popieluch wrote:
> > 
> > I'm glad I'm not the only one feeling this way. As careful I am trying
> > to be I still end up overlooking some dependency. I wonder if it would
> > be possible to reuse the code from taskotron depcheck, or from the koji
> > depcheck to have a local depency check which could be run before pushing
> > to rawhide.
>  
>  I was thinking about this last night, and much of the problem comes from modules where
> for one reason or another we don't have the tests enabled.
>  
>  It struck me that, in most cases, and at least with the recent issues with both argparse
> and sntp, even just a simple attempt to load the module would have caught them.
>  
>  So my proposal is that if there are no proper tests, or we are not currently able to
> enable them, then a simple %check along these lines should be included:
>  
>  %{__nodejs} -e 'require("./")'
>  
>  It won't catch everything because sometimes a dependency is only loaded when a
> particular feature is used, but in most cases they are loaded unconditionally when the
> module is loaded.
>   

I'd actually argue that we probably want to do this whether or not there are other
tests.  (It's always possible that upstream tests run against the source directory
instead of the installed path, and therefore might not be entirely correct)

I'd go so far as to say that we should propose a modification to the packaging
guidelines to state this explicitly. Would you like me to prepare a draft?


> Tom
> 
> -- 
> Tom Hughes (tom(a)compton.nu)
> http://compton.nu/
> _______________________________________________
> nodejs mailing list
> nodejs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail]

[Tom Hughes]

On 14/12/15 11:35, Stephen Gallagher wrote:

>  I'd actually argue that we probably want to do this whether or
> not there are other tests.  (It's always possible that upstream tests run against the
> source directory instead of the installed path, and therefore might not be entirely
> correct) 
Well normally in koji there won't an old version present so that's 
unlikely. Plus because node only searches the local node_modules 
normally it would still be unlikely to find it.

>  I'd go so far as to say that we should propose a modification to
> the packaging guidelines to state this explicitly. Would you like me to prepare a draft?
Sounds good to me.

Sometimes modules have extra entry points that can be loaded with 
variants of require in which case those could be test loaded as well.

Tom

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

[Stephen Gallagher]

>  On Dec 14, 2015, at 6:55 AM, Tom Hughes <tom(a)compton.nu&gt;
> wrote:
>  
> > On 14/12/15 11:35, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > 
> > I'd actually argue that we probably want to do this whether or not there are
> other tests.  (It's always possible that upstream tests run against the source
> directory instead of the installed path, and therefore might not be entirely correct)
>  
>  Well normally in koji there won't an old version present so that's unlikely. Plus
> because node only searches the local node_modules normally it would still be unlikely to
> find it.
>  
> > I'd go so far as to say that we should propose a modification to the packaging
> guidelines to state this explicitly. Would you like me to prepare a draft?
>  
>  Sounds good to me.
>  
>  Sometimes modules have extra entry points that can be loaded with variants of require in
> which case those could be test loaded as well.
>   
Could you give me an example of those variants?


> Tom
> 
> -- 
> Tom Hughes (tom(a)compton.nu)
> http://compton.nu/
> _______________________________________________
> nodejs mailing list
> nodejs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail]

[Tom Hughes]

On 14/12/15 12:08, Stephen Gallagher wrote:

> >> I'd go so far as to say that we should propose a
> modification to the packaging guidelines to state this explicitly. Would you like me to
> prepare a draft?
> >
> > Sounds good to me.
> >
> > Sometimes modules have extra entry points that can be loaded with variants of require
> in which case those could be test loaded as well.
>
>  Could you give me an example of those variants? 
I was going to say readable-stream, where you can do:

   require('readable-stream/transform')

but it turns out the main entry point also requires and exports that, so 
it is equivalent to:

   require('readable-stream').Transform

It illustrates the basic point though, that there can be other top level 
js files that you can require as module/file or test as:

   node -e "require('./file')"

Tom

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

[Jared K. Smith]

I have packages either built or in process for the following:

balanced-match
brace-expansion
builtin-modules
concat-map
escape-string-regexp
graceful-readlink
has-ansi
is-builtin-module
jju
json-parse-helpfulerror
os-homedir
spdx-correct
spdx-exceptions
spdx-expression-parse
validate-npm-package-license

I'll double-check each of them and start creating review requests for them
today.

--
Jared Smith

[Tom Hughes]

On 14/12/15 15:25, Jared K. Smith wrote:
>  I have packages either built or in process for the following:
>
>  balanced-match
>  brace-expansion
>  builtin-modules
>  concat-map
>  escape-string-regexp
>  graceful-readlink
>  has-ansi
>  is-builtin-module
>  jju
>  json-parse-helpfulerror
>  os-homedir
>  spdx-correct
>  spdx-exceptions
>  spdx-expression-parse
>  validate-npm-package-license
>
>  I'll double-check each of them and start creating review requests for
>  them today. 
We should probably create a wiki page with list of all the packages and 
package updates that we know are needed along with bug numbers and/or 
who is working on them?

Tom

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

[Jared K. Smith]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Tom Hughes <tom(a)compton.nu&gt; wrote:

>  We should probably create a wiki page with list of all the packages
> and
>  package updates that we know are needed along with bug numbers and/or who
>  is working on them? 


Quick and dirty wiki page created at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Node.js/npm_update_status

-Jared

[Zuzana Svetlikova]

Are these just the packages needed for npm? I'm just asking because I don't see
nodejs-foo listed as a npm dependency and it looks pretty dead to me.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jared K. Smith" <jsmith(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
To: "Node.js on Fedora" <nodejs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org&gt;
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 5:31:46 PM
Subject: Re: sntp


On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Tom Hughes < tom(a)compton.nu > wrote: 


We should probably create a wiki page with list of all the packages and package updates
that we know are needed along with bug numbers and/or who is working on them? 


Quick and dirty wiki page created at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Node.js/npm_update_status 

-Jared 

_______________________________________________
nodejs mailing list
nodejs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail]

[Tom Hughes]

On 14/12/15 19:38, Zuzana Svetlikova wrote:
>  Are these just the packages needed for npm? I'm just asking
> because I don't see nodejs-foo listed as a npm dependency and it looks pretty dead to
> me. 
Looks like my script was confused by this:

node_modules/read-package-tree/test/fixtures/empty/node_modules/foo/
node_modules/read-package-tree/test/fixtures/noname/node_modules/foo/

So scratch foo from the list.

Tom

>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: "Jared K. Smith" <jsmith(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
>  To: "Node.js on Fedora" <nodejs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org&gt;
>  Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 5:31:46 PM
>  Subject: Re: sntp
>
>
>  On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Tom Hughes < tom(a)compton.nu > wrote:
>
>
>  We should probably create a wiki page with list of all the packages and package updates
> that we know are needed along with bug numbers and/or who is working on them?
>
>
>  Quick and dirty wiki page created at
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Node.js/npm_update_status
>
>  -Jared
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  nodejs mailing list
>  nodejs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail]
>  _______________________________________________
>  nodejs mailing list
>  nodejs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail]
>  

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