On 04/27/2016 08:59 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Denise Dumas <ddumas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Sounds like a job for rhscl :-) >> >> Maybe? >> >> Having nodejs in an SCL (or eventually module) would certainly help >> with versioning issues going forward. However, given Fedora has >> nodejs in the base repository today, Stephen is still left with a hard >> choice here. If his repoquery magic is correct then I think reverting >> to 4.x at the base level for F24 is likely the right idea. >> >> I do like the idea of having 5.x and 6.x in an SCL or module or COPR >> (all somewhat variations on a theme) though. >> > > Would it be possible to try a nodejs 6.x build of everything in a > side-tag or something? My understanding (based on the changelog) is > that things should generally work, as while the ABI broke, most of the > API remained the same. > Well, Rawhide will be moving to Node.js 6.x relatively soon and I think it's probably safe to assume that a COPR will appear for running it on F24 if we decide to do the downgrade (or stay on 5.x). > Personally, I'm not a fan of the idea of using SCLs to support newer > environments in Fedora. I'd prefer if SCLs were used to support older > ones, with newer ones being the default. > Well, I think the idea behind modularization is that we would build a module for each of the versions and they would follow their own lifecycle and not necessarily be tightly dependent on the base Fedora release. Thus there wouldn't really be a "default" for anything that wasn't a component of the foundational module (aka the "base" module).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
