Hi, On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 2:47 AM, T.C. Hollingsworth < tchollingswo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > So this was discussed at today's FESCo meeting[1]. Basically, we're not > > sure that it makes sense to have both interpreters in the distribution, > > particularly since they are merging back together in the future. > > > > Would you be willing to consider just packaging io.js *as* node.js in > > Fedora 23? Among other things, this would avoid the need to go through > > additional package reviews, rebuild nodejs-* packages to work with > > io.js, etc. > > > > My limited understanding of io.js is that it is essentially a superset > > of node.js functionality, > > This is correct. It has additional features but is broadly compatible > with the ecosystem of packages available via npm. > > > so it seems like just moving to this instead > > of node.js 0.12.0 would make sense. > > I'm fine with moving the default engine in Fedora 23 to io.js. > > I'm not so fine with still calling the package we ship io.js in > "nodejs", since it's not node.js, and we can't be entirely sure the > next version of node.js will be greater than the current version of > io.js (although I believe that is the plan). > > > Otherwise, will this Change require building NPM packages for iojs > > -<module> rather than (or in addition to) nodejs-module? Can this be > > avoided by running them with an alternatives-provided /usr/bin/node? > > No. Only binary modules would require special iojs-foo cousins due to > the different binary compatibility surface of the two engines. These > would be built from the SRPMS that already exist. While binary module > SRPMs would require changes, none would be necessary for > pure-JavaScript modules. > > npm does not offer any ability to ship different code when different > node.js/io.js versions are used, so it really isn't necessary for us > to either. The vast majority of all code in the ecosystem will either > Just Work or detect and do the right thing at runtime. We also don't > really have the resources to maintain two separate stacks of > JavaScript applications, as you're rightly concerned about. > > Therefore, we do not intend to support shipping different versions of > pure-JavaScript nodejs software for different engines, though it of > course will be possible to express that a particular package only > works/doesn't work with a particular engine via Requires/Conflicts. > > Note that all of the above is a concern for the SIG even if we only > ship io.js in Fedora, as I'd eventually like to get 0.12 into EPEL > without leaving 0.10 users in the dust. My intention was to design > the binary SRPM build logic such that the same SRPM would build > nodejs-foo and iojs-foo cousins on Fedora and nodejs0.10-foo and > nodejs0.12-foo cousins on EPEL with no spec changes. > > So remember that some big changes are coming to nodejs-packaging and > binary module SRPMs anyway, the only question is which branches > they're landing in. ;-) > > Can you please add this information on change wiki page as well? Thanks, Parag.
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
