On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 3:38 PM Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 9:33 PM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 8:21 AM Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 2:02 PM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Upstream Node.js has not supported the i686 architecture officially > > > > since Node.js 10.x (released in 2018). As of Node.js 22, it appears > > > > that v8 will no longer build at all on that architecture. > > > > > > > > I'm not particularly willing to go to any great lengths to keep it > > > > alive on i686, but I want to know if there's anyone out there who is > > > > *desperately* in need of it in Fedora. > > > > > > Most (all?) nodejs "library" packages were retired, right? > > > > > > And even if there are still some of them around, most of them should > > > be "noarch"? In that case, they shouldn't need adaptations, since koji > > > now no longer schedules noarch builds to run on i686. > > > But those nodejs packages that are not noarch (however many of them > > > are still in Fedora) will need ExcludeArch: i686. > > > > > > However, another problem might arched non-nodejs packages that need > > > nodejs at build-time. It looks like there's a bunch of packages that > > > "BuildRequires: nodejs" - among them, chromium, firefox, thunderbird, > > > RStudio, qt?-webengine, tinygo, etc. I'm not sure how many of these > > > still build on i686, but some might not be able to disable the nodejs > > > BR, so they would need to stop building on i686 too. > > > > > > > I've looked through most of these and they generally seem to be either > > noarch or else using one of %nodejs_arches or %java_arches for their > > BuildArch. If I make this change, I'll adapt %nodejs_arches to exclude > > i686 and %java_arches already does so. > > That sounds good to me, but it doesn't really answer my question: > Those packages dropping i686 might cause follow-up issues in *their* > dependent packages, and so on. > If they are leaf packages, that's not an issue, but dropping > architecture support is a breaking change that needs to be > coordinated. > > So what you're *really* saying is that you will drop i686 from %nodejs_arches? > I think that has a big enough (and possibly ill-defined) scope that it > would qualify as a Change. > Do you think that's worth a separate Change from the Node.js 22 Change I already filed? I can amend that (and ask FESCo to re-vote based on new information). -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
