On 04/27/2016 09:07 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: >>>> As for Option 1)? I think someone with more knowledge of the individual modules >>>> in Fedora (Tom Hughes? Jared Smith?) would need to figure out how many modules >>>> would be broken if we downgraded. If it's sufficiently small, I suppose we could >>>> epoch-bump nodejs and its virtual npm Provides: and go that route. I don't love >>>> that we will effectively been playing yo-yo with the version in F24, but it >>>> would be a solution... >>> >>> Off the top of my head I'm not aware of anything that requires 5.x and for the >>> most part I think people try to support at least 4.x and 5.x at the moment, and >>> often earlier versions as well. >>> >>> Tom >>> >> >> OK, I did some repoquery magic just now and came up with (unique-only): >> >> >> nodejs(engine) >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.1 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.10 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.0 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.12 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.15 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.3 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.36 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.1.103 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.12.0 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.1.90 >> nodejs(engine) > 0.1.90 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.2.0 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.2.0-0 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.2.4 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.2.5 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.3.0 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.3.1 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.3.6 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.4 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.4. >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.0 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.1 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.2 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.7 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.9 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.6 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.6.0 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.6.19 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.6.3 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.6.6 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.8 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.8. >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.8.0 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.8.19 >> nodejs(engine) >= 0.9.0 >> nodejs(engine) >= 4 >> nodejs(engine) >= 4.0.0 >> >> >> >> So according to this, we have nothing in the package collection that is known to >> require only 5.x or later. So that's a point in favor of the 4.x downgrade approach. >> >> I don't love the idea of regressing the versions post-Beta, but it's starting to >> look like the least-risky approach. We really have no idea what is going to be >> broken by 6.0 and I don't want to stick some poor volunteer with maintaining >> backports of a dead upstream release. > > When you went from 4.x -> 5.x the only stuff that appeared to need to > be remixed was the binary archful rpms. > Yeah, but as that was some time ago, there was certainly an opportunity for new versions that were 5.x+ specific to have landed in the repository. Last night I was too tired to think of the repoquery check, else I probably would have done it before sending the first mail here. If we downgrade, we'll need to respin the archful ones, but those are very few (Bodhi tells me it was 14 packages) and they should be trivial rebuilds.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
