Hi,
>I think the unversioned nodejs package needs to have
>
>```
>Provides: alternative-for(nodejs-bin) = %{node_evr}
>Conflicts: alternative-for(nodejs-bin)
>```
>
>and the unversioned nodejs-npm would need
>
>```
>Provides: alternative-for(nodejs-npm-bin) = %{npm_evr}
>Conflicts: alternative-for(nodejs-npm-bin)
>```
I am not sure where did you look but it is already included, as for only
unversioned provides npm I will have a look, thank you!
On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 8:58 PM Maxwell G <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/10/26 3:28 AM, Andrei Radchenko wrote:
> > Hi, Maxwell.
> >
> > I did try your idea and from quick testing it seems to work, including
> > upgrade.
> > I tested with enabling sub packages is 22 and 24 then:
> > Forced nodejs22 meta: `dnf install nodejs-22.22.2` - gives you nodejs,
> > nodejs22, including binary etc;
> > `dnf upgrade nodejs` - upgrades to nodejs24, replacing `nodejs`,
> > `nodejs-npm`.
> <snip>>
> <
> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/aradchen/nodejs-meta-sub-packages/
> >
> > Regards,
> > Andrei
>
> Thanks for the update! I took a look at nodejs26.spec from the new Copr.
> (Side note: it might make sense to put the new specfiles in some git
> repo so it's easier to review changes.)
>
> I think the unversioned nodejs package needs to have
>
> ```
> Provides: alternative-for(nodejs-bin) = %{node_evr}
> Conflicts: alternative-for(nodejs-bin)
> ```
>
> and the unversioned nodejs-npm would need
>
> ```
> Provides: alternative-for(nodejs-npm-bin) = %{npm_evr}
> Conflicts: alternative-for(nodejs-npm-bin)
> ```
>
> now that there are no unversioned -bin subpackages, since this is
> necessary to avoid file conflicts with the other nodejsNN-bin packages.
>
> Also, I see that both nodejsNN-npm and the unversioned nodejs-npm
> Provide npm. I guess only the unversioned one should Provide npm so that
> users get the default version when running "dnf install npm."
>
>
> Other than that, this looks reasonable.
>
> > Not sure if we can make it clear out nodejs(old) stuff in the same
> > transaction but that's not blocking atm.
>
> Does dnf autoremove work here? If the only package that explicitly
> requires nodejsNN is the metapackage, I would guess that updating the
> metapackage to depend on nodejs(NN+2) would allow nodejsNN to be cleaned
> up on a user system.
>
> Obsoletes wouldn't work here because there's no way to differentiate
> between nodejsNN installed explicitly versus nodejsNN installed by the
> metapackage.
>
> But yeah, I think the main goal is for the metapackage to "roll"
> properly and have the /usr/bin/{node,npm} symlinks automatically get
> updated to the new node version, and the current approach does
> accomplish that AFAICS.
> --
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
> 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/[email protected]
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
>
--
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
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/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
