On 04/27/2016 09:10 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:54 PM, 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 > > Versioning maybe but not the "we're going to be shipping a major > version of nodejs that will be EOL half way through the F-24 cycle" > problem. Whether it's SCL format or standard package format it would > still be built against F-24 deps and we'd still have the issue here. > Sure there could be 4.x and 6.x along side each other but we'd still > have a EOL potentially vuln release hanging around. I'm not sure that's actually a solvable problem. The only thing we can realistically do is offer them the newer version so that they can migrate. If they're still using an EOL release after we've announced that it's dead, that's kind of their problem. Yes, I know that differs with how we've done things in the distro in the past, but that was (in many ways) due to the technical limitation of not having migration mechanisms available in many cases.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
