Re: Updating nodejs-grunt and friends in Rawhide

[Tom Hughes]

On 29/08/2019 20:01, Ben Rosser wrote:

>  Hm, does it make sense then to have a compatibility package for
> lodash3? 
I think we may have to multiversion it yes. Been thinking that for
a while.

I'll try and have a look at doing a lodash4 version of the spec
over the weekend...

>  dnf repoquery --whatrequires nodejs-lodash says: 
You need to look at all the nodejs-lodash-xxx modules as well which
are built from the same source, although they don't make as much
difference as I expected. That and BRs which I haven't looked at.

>  My guess is also that at least *some* of these packages have a newer
>  release which support lodash 4 but no one has updated the package,
>  whether because the package is effectively unmaintained or the
>  maintainer is overworked or worried about breaking dependencies. :( 
Oh probably quite a lot do, it's been a bit chicken and egg having
to try and do everything at once, or even audit what is actually
doable - ie what dependants have a new version with support.

>  For instance, looking at the last package on this list... the
> current
>  version of zip-stream is 2.1.2 and does not actually require lodash at
>  all anymore.
>  
>  https://github.com/archiverjs/node-zip-stream/blob/master/package.json 
Somebody should update it then ;-)

Tom

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

Updating nodejs-grunt and friends in Rawhide

[Ben Rosser]

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 3:59 AM Tom Hughes <tom(a)compton.nu&gt; wrote:
>  On 29/08/2019 20:01, Ben Rosser wrote:
>
>  > Hm, does it make sense then to have a compatibility package for lodash3?
>
>  I think we may have to multiversion it yes. Been thinking that for
>  a while.
>
>  I'll try and have a look at doing a lodash4 version of the spec
>  over the weekend... 
Great, thanks for looking into it!

>  > My guess is also that at least *some* of these packages have a
> newer
>  > release which support lodash 4 but no one has updated the package,
>  > whether because the package is effectively unmaintained or the
>  > maintainer is overworked or worried about breaking dependencies. :(
>
>  Oh probably quite a lot do, it's been a bit chicken and egg having
>  to try and do everything at once, or even audit what is actually
>  doable - ie what dependants have a new version with support. 
Yeah, that's very fair. I've been thinking for a while now-- and this
is probably a separate discussion than just grunt/lodash-- that it
would be very useful to do a thorough audit of all the nodejs-*
packages in Fedora and figure out which ones are outdated, which ones
are uninstallable due to some other package having an unsatisfied
dependency, which dependent packages are outdated, etc.

I've only looked into grunt now because it breaking broke one of my
packages. But it would be really nice to be more proactive here. As it
is, I fear a reasonable number of the nodejs-* packages in Fedora
right now may not actually be very useful...

Ben Rosser

Updating nodejs-grunt and friends in Rawhide

[Tom Hughes]

On 30/08/2019 14:44, Ben Rosser wrote:
>  On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 3:59 AM Tom Hughes <tom(a)compton.nu&gt;
> wrote:
> >
> > On 29/08/2019 20:01, Ben Rosser wrote:
> >
> >> Hm, does it make sense then to have a compatibility package for lodash3?
> >
> > I think we may have to multiversion it yes. Been thinking that for
> > a while.
> >
> > I'll try and have a look at doing a lodash4 version of the spec
> > over the weekend...
>  
>  Great, thanks for looking into it! 
So I now have a working spec for v4 and having now refreshed
my memory of how it all works I think the issues may not be as
bad as I remembered.

Anything which uses nodejs-lodash and loads the whole thing, or
a whole group, so things like:

   require("lodash")
   require("lodash/array")

should be fine, obviously modulo any changes to how the lodash
methods work or removal of old methods.

So should anything which uses one of the split out single method
modules like nodejs-lodash-pad.

Both nodejs-lodash-compat and nodejs-lodash-node go away but there
is appears to be nothing actually using them.

The remaining issue is things using nodejs-lodash and loading an
individual method with something like:

   require("lodash/array/chunk")

which would now need to change to:

   require("lodash/chunk")

Given all this I'm kind of tempted to just go for it and do the
update and then fixup the dependants, which are far less than my
memory suggested, maybe because so many things have been retired
now.

Tom

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

Updating nodejs-grunt and friends in Rawhide

[Ben Rosser]

On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 6:16 AM Tom Hughes <tom(a)compton.nu&gt; wrote:
>  On 30/08/2019 14:44, Ben Rosser wrote:
>  > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 3:59 AM Tom Hughes <tom(a)compton.nu&gt; wrote:
>  >>
>  >> On 29/08/2019 20:01, Ben Rosser wrote:
>  >>
>  >>> Hm, does it make sense then to have a compatibility package for lodash3?
>  >>
>  >> I think we may have to multiversion it yes. Been thinking that for
>  >> a while.
>  >>
>  >> I'll try and have a look at doing a lodash4 version of the spec
>  >> over the weekend...
>  >
>  > Great, thanks for looking into it!
>
>  So I now have a working spec for v4 and having now refreshed
>  my memory of how it all works I think the issues may not be as
>  bad as I remembered.
>
>  Anything which uses nodejs-lodash and loads the whole thing, or
>  a whole group, so things like:
>
>     require("lodash")
>     require("lodash/array")
>
>  should be fine, obviously modulo any changes to how the lodash
>  methods work or removal of old methods.
>
>  So should anything which uses one of the split out single method
>  modules like nodejs-lodash-pad.
>
>  Both nodejs-lodash-compat and nodejs-lodash-node go away but there
>  is appears to be nothing actually using them.
>
>  The remaining issue is things using nodejs-lodash and loading an
>  individual method with something like:
>
>     require("lodash/array/chunk")
>
>  which would now need to change to:
>
>     require("lodash/chunk")
>
>  Given all this I'm kind of tempted to just go for it and do the
>  update and then fixup the dependants, which are far less than my
>  memory suggested, maybe because so many things have been retired
>  now.
>
>  Tom 
Hi Tom,

I'm certainly in favor of going ahead with this, and no one seems to
have objected (at least not on this list). Let me know if I can do
something to help.

Cheers,
Ben

Updating nodejs-grunt and friends in Rawhide

[Tom Hughes]

On 11/09/2019 16:08, Ben Rosser wrote:

>  I'm certainly in favor of going ahead with this, and no one seems
> to
>  have objected (at least not on this list). Let me know if I can do
>  something to help. 
I've updated lodash in rawhide, and hopefully fixed the worst
of the resulting fallout.

I also updated grunt-legacy-log-utils and grunt-legacy-log
though I have no idea if they still work as I had to disable
the tests because there are circular dependencies on the
rest of grunt but hopefully once you update that I can
turn them back on.

Tom

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

Updating nodejs-grunt and friends in Rawhide

[Ben Rosser]

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:42 PM Tom Hughes <tom(a)compton.nu&gt; wrote:
>  On 11/09/2019 16:08, Ben Rosser wrote:
>
>  > I'm certainly in favor of going ahead with this, and no one seems to
>  > have objected (at least not on this list). Let me know if I can do
>  > something to help.
>
>  I've updated lodash in rawhide, and hopefully fixed the worst
>  of the resulting fallout.
>
>  I also updated grunt-legacy-log-utils and grunt-legacy-log
>  though I have no idea if they still work as I had to disable
>  the tests because there are circular dependencies on the
>  rest of grunt but hopefully once you update that I can
>  turn them back on.
>
>  Tom
>
>  --
>  Tom Hughes (tom(a)compton.nu)
>  http://compton.nu/ 
Hi Tom,

Thanks for taking care of this!

I've opened a pull request to update the main nodejs-grunt package, as
I don't own it (though the SIG apparently has permissions):
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nodejs-grunt/pull-request/1

I verified the built package installs in mock under Rawhide. Though
I've turned off the tests for the same reason (I think some of the
other grunt packages, including grunt-contrib-watch [1] need to be
updated too).

Cheers,
Ben

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1746634