On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 12:04 PM Iñaki Ucar <iu...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > As a brief summary: > > - The Node.js repackaging change [1-2] was accepted for F38. > - Packages nodejs16 and nodejs18 were created without any review [3-4] (?).
This is fine, packages that are only alternative versions of existing packages are exempt from package review. > - Package nodejs20 was created a month ago, but I didn't find any > review request. Why? Same reason - alternative versions do not require package review. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/#_package_review_process > - This repackaging has been pushed to F37 too. Why, if this was a F38 change? I agree, this is unusual. > - Now we have conflicts in F37 and F38 [5], with FTBFS for those > requiring unversioned nodejs. That sounds like a packaging bug. The default nodejs version should always provide the "unversioned" nodejs, and other versions must not provide the unversioned names. (This is how Python packages work in Fedora for a while, but it looks like the process is still very buggy for nodejs.) (Side note: It was explicitly decided against using alternatives for this purpose, because the way it's done for Python - and now NodeJS - should be less error-prone and buggy. Java is one of the few things in Fedora that still uses alternatives for this use case.) Fabio _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
