F23 Self Contained Change: Node.js 0.12

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Wed, 2015-06-24 at 13:23 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch at redhat.com> 
> wrote:
> > What the version of v8 will be? I am asking, since rubygem
> > -therubyracer
> > is using system version of v8 and I am bit afraid what impact it 
> > will have.
> 
> 3.28.73 for nodejs 0.12, 4.2.77.13 for iojs.
> 
> Looks like rubygem-therubyracer is still on 3.16.  :-(
> 
> I don't mind doing a v8-3.14 compat package for a few Fedora 
> releases,
> since I'm still going to be maintaining it in EPEL for the forseeable
> future anyway...
> 
> > How is Chromium compatible with the updated Node.js (not user of
> > Chromium though, neither it is in Fedora AFAIK).
> 
> Not at all, nor has it been ever, nor will it be ever.  Last time I
> checked spot didn't even bother separating v8 from chromium anymore,
> it's gotten so bad.  :-/
> 
> > And since the two questions above, I am not sure it should not be 
> > system
> > wide change (not mentioning all the nodejs- packages which depends 
> > on
> > Node.js).
> 
> Well the nodejs-* packages are clearly within our SIG, which the
> Change policy says is okay for Self-Contained Change.
> 
> The v8 changes do affect two other packages, though.  I could adjust
> the category of the wiki page, or split out the v8 changes from
> io.js/nodejs012 into a v8 systemwide one.  But the change deadline 
> was
> yesterday, is this still okay?
> 


I'll indicate to FESCo that we should consider the Node.js update to be
system-wide when we discuss it at the meeting next week. I don't think
it's worth separating into two Change Proposals considering it doesn't
change the work being done, really.



> -T.C.
> 
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch at redhat.com> 
> wrote:
> > Dne 24.6.2015 v 01:37 Jan Kurik napsal(a):
> > >   -- Update v8
> > > 
> > 
> > What the version of v8 will be? I am asking, since rubygem
> > -therubyracer
> > is using system version of v8 and I am bit afraid what impact it 
> > will have.
> > 
> > How is Chromium compatible with the updated Node.js (not user of
> > Chromium though, neither it is in Fedora AFAIK).
> > 
> > And since the two questions above, I am not sure it should not be 
> > system
> > wide change (not mentioning all the nodejs- packages which depends 
> > on
> > Node.js).
> > 
> > 
> > Vít
> > --
> > devel mailing list
> > devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150625/f8dbc2b3/attachment.sig>