On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 3:35 PM Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 9:20 PM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 3:16 PM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have now submitted
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2150093 and
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2150094 for the
> > `nodejs16` and `nodejs18` packages for Fedora.
> >
> > You can test them with `dnf copr enable sgallagh/nodejs-alternatives`.
> >
> > The final approach I took is one that follows the example of Python3.
> > The SRPM is versioned according to the major release number and the
> > output binary RPMs will be `nodejs[-*]` if it is the default version
> > for that release or `nodejs$MAJOR[-*]` if not.
> >
> > I've tested the upgrade path from F36 and F37 and it appears to work
> > fine (and could, in fact, trivially be backported to the live releases
> > to simplify maintenance).
> >
> > I'd appreciate package reviews from anyone with the available time. Thank
you.
>
> Ping.
>
> I still need someone to perform these reviews.
Technically, it's not a "need", but a "nice to have", since
they're
alternative versions of a package that already exists:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuideline...
(bullet point 2).
So unless you really want a second opinion, you could just skip the reviews.
Huh... I thought I remembered we had that policy and I went looking
for it, but couldn't find it. I must have skimmed over it.
Thanks