On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 7:33 AM Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 12:04 PM Iñaki Ucar <iucar(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
...
> - This repackaging has been pushed to F37 too. Why, if this was
a F38 change?
I agree, this is unusual.
Hi, Node.js maintainer here.
The changes I was making to F38 ended up being significantly different
from the older packaging to the degree that attempting to maintain
both was going to be more than I could handle. I opted to backport the
change to F37 rather than overwork myself or leave F37 unmaintained).
> - Now we have conflicts in F37 and F38 [5], with FTBFS for
those
> requiring unversioned nodejs.
That sounds like a packaging bug.
It's definitely a packaging bug. I've been working on fixing it and I
*think* the versions I just sent to updates-testing today
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2edcc2b186 and
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-973319d5b7 will
resolve it.
The default nodejs version should always provide the
"unversioned"
nodejs, and other versions must not provide the unversioned names.
(This is how Python packages work in Fedora for a while, but it looks
like the process is still very buggy for nodejs.)
Yeah, I meant to do this the same way that Python does and I missed a
few places; those should be resolved by the latest round of updates...
I hope.
(Side note: It was explicitly decided against using alternatives for
this purpose, because the way it's done for Python - and now NodeJS -
should be less error-prone and buggy. Java is one of the few things in
Fedora that still uses alternatives for this use case.)
"Should" is my least-favorite word in the English language.