Updating node from version 10

DoneSubmitted by Daniel Gerber.
Details
8 participants
  • Björn Höfling
  • Christopher Lemmer Webber
  • Daniel Gerber
  • Sarah Morgensen
  • Jelle Licht
  • Christopher Baines
  • Maxim Cournoyer
  • Marius Bakke
Owner
unassigned
Severity
normal
D
D
Daniel Gerber wrote on 18 Feb 2019 15:36
Updating node.js
(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)
87d0npb1tx.fsf@atufi.org
Trying to build the current upstream version, 11.10.0...
Toggle diff (69 lines)
diff --git a/gnu/packages/node.scm b/gnu/packages/node.scm
index a0221601d..9d35765eb 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/node.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/node.scm
@@ -45,26 +45,17 @@
 (define-public node
   (package
     (name "node")
-    (version "9.11.1")
+    (version "11.10.0")
     (source (origin
               (method url-fetch)
               (uri (string-append "https://nodejs.org/dist/v" version
-                                  "/node-v" version ".tar.gz"))
+                                  "/node-v" version ".tar.xz"))
               (sha256
                (base32
-                "1vjh9zvw7wkdz6b0l99ya7mqjk0l8lbg9isr1q8rxwp400dhkk32"))
+                "1kyi35qkg7h5nk0cjdgy8pfm5v2qmzqc7k3app2c8226mrkarhlz"))
               (modules '((guix build utils)))
               (snippet
                `(begin
-                  ;; Remove bundled software.
-                  (for-each delete-file-recursively
-                            '("deps/cares"
-                              "deps/http_parser"
-                              "deps/icu-small"
-                              "deps/nghttp2"
-                              "deps/openssl"
-                              "deps/uv"
-                              "deps/zlib"))
                   (substitute* "Makefile"
                     ;; Remove references to bundled software.
                     (("deps/http_parser/http_parser.gyp") "")
@@ -74,7 +65,6 @@
                   #t))))
     (build-system gnu-build-system)
     (arguments
-     ;; TODO: Purge the bundled copies from the source.
      '(#:configure-flags '("--shared-cares"
                            "--shared-http-parser"
                            "--shared-libuv"
@@ -110,14 +100,6 @@
                (("'/usr/bin/env'")
                 (string-append "'" (which "env") "'")))

-             ;; FIXME: These tests depend on being able to install eslint.
-             ;; See https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/17098.
-             (for-each delete-if-exists
-                       '("test/parallel/test-eslint-alphabetize-errors.js"
-                         "test/parallel/test-eslint-buffer-constructor.js"
-                         "test/parallel/test-eslint-documented-errors.js"
-                         "test/parallel/test-eslint-inspector-check.js"))
-
              ;; FIXME: These tests fail in the build container, but they don't
              ;; seem to be indicative of real problems in practice.
              (for-each delete-if-exists
@@ -184,9 +166,9 @@
      `(("c-ares" ,c-ares)
        ("http-parser" ,http-parser)
        ("icu4c" ,icu4c)
-       ("libuv" ,libuv-1.19)
+       ("libuv" ,libuv)
        ("nghttp2" ,nghttp2 "lib")
-       ("openssl" ,openssl)
+       ("openssl" ,openssl-next)
        ("zlib" ,zlib)))
     (synopsis "Evented I/O for V8 JavaScript")
     (description "Node.js is a platform built on Chrome's JavaScript runtime
Notes on v11.10.0:
- it does support openssl@1.1.1
- it ships with libuv 1.26.0 (1.24.0 in guix)
- some previously bundled deps are absent from tarball
- NODE_EXPERIMENTAL_HTTP is a no-op / always defined

There is an issue with the alternative http parser, `llhttp`. The
choice of parser is at runtime, and one compile flag,
--shared-http-parser, configures both. Building fails with:

```
g++ -o
/tmp/guix-build-node-11.10.0.drv-0/node-v11.10.0/out/Release/obj.target/node_lib/src/node_http_parser_llhttp.o
../src/node_http_parser_llhttp.cc '-DNODE_ARCH="x64"'
'-DNODE_PLATFORM="linux"' '-DNODE_WANT_INTERNALS=1'
'-DV8_DEPRECATION_WARNINGS=1' '-DNODE_OPENSSL_SYSTEM_CERT_PATH=""'
'-DHAVE_INSPECTOR=1' '-DNODE_REPORT' '-D__POSIX__'
'-DNODE_USE_V8_PLATFORM=1' '-DNODE_HAVE_I18N_SUPPORT=1'
'-DHAVE_OPENSSL=1' -I../src
-I/tmp/guix-build-node-11.10.0.drv-0/node-v11.10.0/out/Release/obj/gen
-I/tmp/guix-build-node-11.10.0.drv-0/node-v11.10.0/out/Release/obj/gen/include
-I/tmp/guix-build-node-11.10.0.drv-0/node-v11.10.0/out/Release/obj/gen/src
-I../deps/histogram/src -I../deps/v8/include
-I../deps/brotli/c/include -pthread -Wall -Wextra
-Wno-unused-parameter -m64 -Wall -Wextra -Wno-unused-parameter -O3
-fno-omit-frame-pointer -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions -std=gnu++1y
-MMD -MF
/tmp/guix-build-node-11.10.0.drv-0/node-v11.10.0/out/Release/.deps//tmp/guix-build-node-11.10.0.drv-0/node-v11.10.0/out/Release/obj.target/node_lib/src/node_http_parser_llhttp.o.d.raw
-c
In file included from ../src/node_http_parser_impl.h:41:0,
from ../src/node_http_parser_llhttp.cc:3:
../src/http_parser_adaptor.h:5:21: fatal error: llhttp.h: No such
file or directory
```

AFAIU, either llhttp has to be made a separate package and listed
in inputs, or http-parser linked statically. Or should the missing
-I../deps/llhttp/include argument be passed here somehow -- maybe
patching node.gypi?

I have not tried to build 10.15.1(LTS), which presumably has the
same issues as in #32095.

Also, should previous version branches (8.x, 9.x) be kept in guix?

In the meantime, these minor updates work fine:
Toggle diff (22 lines)
diff --git a/gnu/packages/node.scm b/gnu/packages/node.scm
index a0221601d..8ffd60133 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/node.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/node.scm
@@ -45,14 +45,14 @@
 (define-public node
   (package
     (name "node")
-    (version "9.11.1")
+    (version "9.11.2")
     (source (origin
               (method url-fetch)
               (uri (string-append "https://nodejs.org/dist/v" version
-                                  "/node-v" version ".tar.gz"))
+                                  "/node-v" version ".tar.xz"))
               (sha256
                (base32
-                "1vjh9zvw7wkdz6b0l99ya7mqjk0l8lbg9isr1q8rxwp400dhkk32"))
+                "04y2dnbf6jl8j0ykfkdwhir09h274d13k843d7lqfz3bgyn4wj06"))
               (modules '((guix build utils)))
               (snippet
                `(begin
Toggle diff (18 lines)
diff --git a/gnu/packages/node.scm b/gnu/packages/node.scm
index a0221601d..c52e21cf6 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/node.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/node.scm
@@ -202,11 +202,11 @@ devices.")
   (package
     (inherit node)
     (name "node-lts")
-    (version "8.12.0")
+    (version "8.15.0")
     (source (origin
               (inherit (package-source node))
               (uri (string-append "https://nodejs.org/dist/v" version
                                   "/node-v" version ".tar.xz"))
               (sha256
                (base32
-                "16j1rrxkhmvpcw689ndw1raql1gz4jqn7n82z55zn63c05cgz7as"))))))
+                "0cy6lzk9sn545kkc0jviv0k0hn30kindrpkkkmv3zk2774rj71cn"))))))
J
J
Jelle Licht wrote on 18 Feb 2019 21:50
(name . Daniel Gerber)(address . dg@atufi.org)(address . 34526@debbugs.gnu.org)
877edw6cta.fsf@fsfe.org
Daniel Gerber <dg@atufi.org> writes:

Toggle quote (21 lines)
> Notes on v11.10.0:
> - it does support openssl@1.1.1
> - it ships with libuv 1.26.0 (1.24.0 in guix)
> - some previously bundled deps are absent from tarball
> - NODE_EXPERIMENTAL_HTTP is a no-op / always defined
>
> There is an issue with the alternative http parser, `llhttp`. The
> choice of parser is at runtime, and one compile flag,
> --shared-http-parser, configures both. Building fails with:

> [snip]

> ../src/http_parser_adaptor.h:5:21: fatal error: llhttp.h: No such
> file or directory
> ```
>
> AFAIU, either llhttp has to be made a separate package and listed
> in inputs, or http-parser linked statically. Or should the missing
> -I../deps/llhttp/include argument be passed here somehow -- maybe
> patching node.gypi?

It seems that llhttp includes a build step for generating C-files using
TypeScript, making it a non-starter for proper packaging in Guix.

sadly no solution.

Toggle quote (6 lines)
>
> I have not tried to build 10.15.1(LTS), which presumably has the
> same issues as in #32095.
>
> Also, should previous version branches (8.x, 9.x) be kept in guix?

As long as they are still supported by upstream, I see no issue with
this. The 8.x LTS is still maintained through the end of 2019.

I am not sure the 9.X series is still supported. If not, it might make
more sense to remove it instead of updating it.
B
B
Björn Höfling wrote on 19 Feb 2019 09:06
(name . Jelle Licht)(address . jlicht@fsfe.org)
20190219090606.6c1172c8@alma-ubu
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 21:50:41 +0100
Jelle Licht <jlicht@fsfe.org> wrote:

Toggle quote (3 lines)
> sadly no solution.

Thanks for looking into these things, really sounds sad. It would be
nice if the JavaScript/node.js people would care more about
bootstrapping from source.

Björn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EARECAB0WIQQiGUP0np8nb5SZM4K/KGy2WT5f/QUCXGu47gAKCRC/KGy2WT5f
/bmOAKCTybKvaLKNvwzrl/1zQLfIeac63wCgiXOAZ8qG/JXh5K8b+9IYGdVWVeI=
=A6uq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


D
D
Daniel Gerber wrote on 19 Feb 2019 17:42
(name . Jelle Licht)(address . jlicht@fsfe.org)(address . 34526@debbugs.gnu.org)
87h8cz20ic.fsf@atufi.org
2019-02-18, Jelle Licht:
Toggle quote (7 lines)
> It seems that llhttp includes a build step for generating
> C-files using TypeScript, making it a non-starter for proper
> packaging in Guix.
>
> See https://github.com/nodejs/llhttp/issues/14 for more details,
> but sadly no solution.

What about statically linking llhttp's C "sources" included in
node? Building v11.10.0 succeeds with this:
Toggle diff (17 lines)
diff --git a/node.gypi b/node.gypi
index c07b5ea704..c08493efbe 100644
--- a/node.gypi
+++ b/node.gypi
@@ -174,6 +174,12 @@
       ],
     } ],
 
+    [ 'node_shared_http_parser=="true"', {
+      'dependencies': [
+        'deps/llhttp/llhttp.gyp:llhttp'
+      ],
+    } ],
+
     [ 'node_shared_cares=="false"', {
       'dependencies': [ 'deps/cares/cares.gyp:cares' ],
     }],
D
D
Daniel Gerber wrote on 19 Feb 2019 18:00
(name . Jelle Licht)(address . jlicht@fsfe.org)(address . 34526@debbugs.gnu.org)
87ftsj1znf.fsf@atufi.org
I mean, it builds after also updating libuv:
--- gnu/packages/libevent.scm.orig 2019-02-13 10:04:31.913458810 +0100
+++ gnu/packages/libevent.scm 2019-02-19 13:30:49.496780516 +0100
@@ -124,14 +124,14 @@
(define-public libuv
(package
(name "libuv")
- (version "1.24.0")
+ (version "1.26.0")
(source (origin
(method url-fetch)
(uri (string-append "https://dist.libuv.org/dist/v"version
"/libuv-v" version ".tar.gz"))
(sha256
(base32
- "01pg0zsfr8mxlpipkbpw0dpsl26x5s966f5br7dx9ac29abk419q"))))
+ "1rqlh0ag02fni8ildz3anc26z9vz69vwf5qmzsid2gvzzfkigy6a"))))
(build-system gnu-build-system)
(arguments
'(;; XXX: Some tests want /dev/tty, attempt to make connections, etc.
Then, tests from test/cctest/test_inspector_socket.cc fail.
J
J
Jelle Licht wrote on 20 Feb 2019 14:59
(name . Daniel Gerber)(address . dg@atufi.org)
877edud0ha.fsf@fsfe.org
Daniel Gerber <dg@atufi.org> writes:

Toggle quote (5 lines)
> [snip]
> What about statically linking llhttp's C "sources" included in
> node? Building v11.10.0 succeeds with this:
>

You could do this, of course, but afaics this is not acceptable for
inclusion in Guix proper.

I don't really see any way forward between convincing the fine node
folks to see the 'error of their ways', or to implement a ABI-compatible
replacement for llhttp that we can actually bootstrap.
D
D
Daniel Gerber wrote on 21 Feb 2019 18:02
(name . Jelle Licht)(address . jlicht@fsfe.org)(address . 34526@debbugs.gnu.org)
87va1doz0z.fsf@atufi.org
Hi,

2019-02-20, Jelle Licht:
Toggle quote (16 lines)
> Daniel Gerber <dg@atufi.org> writes:
>
>> [snip]
>> What about statically linking llhttp's C "sources" included in
>> node? Building v11.10.0 succeeds with this:
>
> You could do this, of course, but afaics this is not acceptable
> for
> inclusion in Guix proper.
>
> I don't really see any way forward between convincing the fine
> node
> folks to see the 'error of their ways', or to implement a
> ABI-compatible
> replacement for llhttp that we can actually bootstrap.

Although I would prefer the convincing-the-fine-node-folks
solution, here are two more ways to avoid dropping node with the
EOL of 8.x(LTS) at the end of 2019.

- Remove llhttp and keep only the "legacy" http-parser, or

- Accept to bootstrap it -- I mean use intermediary self-compiling
steps, like ccl, golang, java, or haskell do.
The build-time dependencies are: node@11.x -> llhttp -> ts-node ->
typescript -> self (typescript), plus quite a few npm packages.
It seems that node@8.x or 9.x should be a native-input to later
versions, but I do not know enough of Guile / Guix packaging to do
it myself anytime soon.
C
C
Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote on 16 Nov 2019 21:28
(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)
871ru7h8gh.fsf@dustycloud.org
Daniel Gerber writes:

Toggle quote (31 lines)
> Hi,
>
> 2019-02-20, Jelle Licht:
>> Daniel Gerber <dg@atufi.org> writes:
>>
>>> [snip]
>>> What about statically linking llhttp's C "sources" included in
>>> node? Building v11.10.0 succeeds with this:
>>
>> You could do this, of course, but afaics this is not acceptable for
>> inclusion in Guix proper.
>>
>> I don't really see any way forward between convincing the fine node
>> folks to see the 'error of their ways', or to implement a
>> ABI-compatible
>> replacement for llhttp that we can actually bootstrap.
>
> Although I would prefer the convincing-the-fine-node-folks solution,
> here are two more ways to avoid dropping node with the EOL of 8.x(LTS)
> at the end of 2019.
>
> - Remove llhttp and keep only the "legacy" http-parser, or
>
> - Accept to bootstrap it -- I mean use intermediary self-compiling
> steps, like ccl, golang, java, or haskell do.
> The build-time dependencies are: node@11.x -> llhttp -> ts-node ->
> typescript -> self (typescript), plus quite a few npm packages.
> It seems that node@8.x or 9.x should be a native-input to later
> versions, but I do not know enough of Guile / Guix packaging to do it
> myself anytime soon.

Hello,

Went through the process of trying to update node myself, not having
remembered this bug. Ran into the same issue.

The bug was closed; I doubt we are going to convince the Node folks.

Quite a few high-importance projects rely on Node at this point, and we
are running an out of date Node which I suspect probably has quite a few
insecurities.

Our version of Node: v10.16.0
LTS Node: v12.13.0
Latest Node: v13.1.0

One way or another, we will probably need to update. Both Chromium and
Icecat depend on Node at this point. I'm not sure if either of them use
Node in any active way that an insecruity could manifest or if it's
"just for packaging" but I think there's good reason to be nervous about
being so out of date.
M
M
Marius Bakke wrote on 17 Nov 2019 19:25
(address . jlicht@fsfe.org)
878soefjhe.fsf@devup.no
Christopher Lemmer Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org> writes:

Toggle quote (54 lines)
> Daniel Gerber writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 2019-02-20, Jelle Licht:
>>> Daniel Gerber <dg@atufi.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>> What about statically linking llhttp's C "sources" included in
>>>> node? Building v11.10.0 succeeds with this:
>>>
>>> You could do this, of course, but afaics this is not acceptable for
>>> inclusion in Guix proper.
>>>
>>> I don't really see any way forward between convincing the fine node
>>> folks to see the 'error of their ways', or to implement a
>>> ABI-compatible
>>> replacement for llhttp that we can actually bootstrap.
>>
>> Although I would prefer the convincing-the-fine-node-folks solution,
>> here are two more ways to avoid dropping node with the EOL of 8.x(LTS)
>> at the end of 2019.
>>
>> - Remove llhttp and keep only the "legacy" http-parser, or
>>
>> - Accept to bootstrap it -- I mean use intermediary self-compiling
>> steps, like ccl, golang, java, or haskell do.
>> The build-time dependencies are: node@11.x -> llhttp -> ts-node ->
>> typescript -> self (typescript), plus quite a few npm packages.
>> It seems that node@8.x or 9.x should be a native-input to later
>> versions, but I do not know enough of Guile / Guix packaging to do it
>> myself anytime soon.
>
> Hello,
>
> Went through the process of trying to update node myself, not having
> remembered this bug. Ran into the same issue.
>
> The bug was closed; I doubt we are going to convince the Node folks.
>
> Quite a few high-importance projects rely on Node at this point, and we
> are running an out of date Node which I suspect probably has quite a few
> insecurities.
>
> Our version of Node: v10.16.0
> LTS Node: v12.13.0
> Latest Node: v13.1.0
>
> One way or another, we will probably need to update. Both Chromium and
> Icecat depend on Node at this point. I'm not sure if either of them use
> Node in any active way that an insecruity could manifest or if it's
> "just for packaging" but I think there's good reason to be nervous about
> being so out of date.

Node 10.x is maintained until April 2021 though:


...so we still have some time to figure out how to bootstrap Node 12.x
and later.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEu7At3yzq9qgNHeZDoqBt8qM6VPoFAl3RkJ0ACgkQoqBt8qM6
VPo3rQf9GTSaYchNAL4TWAYKFL49RewhVDbUzp0KrgS344kyHOUo6CSB48fg0sjl
cfQMOmfKjZE1feH5N8wV4YTFtuyzEfR1FmtX3622d1h0KiXuvi6KpknduRdPapE/
NPb/H4hHNyoaDbXDJDALP72FScpxCcAXAA5aAzIgoN5eZ4E3a9VRbQFmWSPxICZv
xCyug32AM3opAsOzpM+bMaSkniiP/k3IOUDUyxUTqoyMHm3Tm5dpi9ufgQUVq+pR
72MdxXivT54h5uto0jCEHhVdc70mN256Wsmh71d0WIv4y6X+zdE3Qry/helql15R
7uIodY0QulihesGZPTtvcpzuj6wQZg==
=i9Ea
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

C
C
Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote on 20 Nov 2019 15:26
(name . Marius Bakke)(address . mbakke@fastmail.com)
878soafwtt.fsf@dustycloud.org
Marius Bakke writes:

Toggle quote (63 lines)
> Christopher Lemmer Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org> writes:
>
>> Daniel Gerber writes:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> 2019-02-20, Jelle Licht:
>>>> Daniel Gerber <dg@atufi.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> What about statically linking llhttp's C "sources" included in
>>>>> node? Building v11.10.0 succeeds with this:
>>>>
>>>> You could do this, of course, but afaics this is not acceptable for
>>>> inclusion in Guix proper.
>>>>
>>>> I don't really see any way forward between convincing the fine node
>>>> folks to see the 'error of their ways', or to implement a
>>>> ABI-compatible
>>>> replacement for llhttp that we can actually bootstrap.
>>>
>>> Although I would prefer the convincing-the-fine-node-folks solution,
>>> here are two more ways to avoid dropping node with the EOL of 8.x(LTS)
>>> at the end of 2019.
>>>
>>> - Remove llhttp and keep only the "legacy" http-parser, or
>>>
>>> - Accept to bootstrap it -- I mean use intermediary self-compiling
>>> steps, like ccl, golang, java, or haskell do.
>>> The build-time dependencies are: node@11.x -> llhttp -> ts-node ->
>>> typescript -> self (typescript), plus quite a few npm packages.
>>> It seems that node@8.x or 9.x should be a native-input to later
>>> versions, but I do not know enough of Guile / Guix packaging to do it
>>> myself anytime soon.
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Went through the process of trying to update node myself, not having
>> remembered this bug. Ran into the same issue.
>>
>> The bug was closed; I doubt we are going to convince the Node folks.
>>
>> Quite a few high-importance projects rely on Node at this point, and we
>> are running an out of date Node which I suspect probably has quite a few
>> insecurities.
>>
>> Our version of Node: v10.16.0
>> LTS Node: v12.13.0
>> Latest Node: v13.1.0
>>
>> One way or another, we will probably need to update. Both Chromium and
>> Icecat depend on Node at this point. I'm not sure if either of them use
>> Node in any active way that an insecruity could manifest or if it's
>> "just for packaging" but I think there's good reason to be nervous about
>> being so out of date.
>
> Node 10.x is maintained until April 2021 though:
>
> https://nodejs.org/en/about/releases/
>
> ...so we still have some time to figure out how to bootstrap Node 12.x
> and later.

That's fair.

I have a personal project that requires that I use a newer version of
Node (at least version 11). So if anyone has a recipe on how to get
Node running, even the wrong way per Guix standards, maybe useful to
post to this bug in the meanwhile? It might also still help advance
this bug.
J
J
Jelle Licht wrote on 21 Nov 2019 14:34
(address . 34526@debbugs.gnu.org)
87mucpic8w.fsf@jlicht.xyz
Christopher Lemmer Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org> writes:

Toggle quote (8 lines)
> That's fair.
>
> I have a personal project that requires that I use a newer version of
> Node (at least version 11). So if anyone has a recipe on how to get
> Node running, even the wrong way per Guix standards, maybe useful to
> post to this bug in the meanwhile? It might also still help advance
> this bug.

I tried my hand at building llhttp (again...) using our existing nodejs
+ Sucrase (an alternative TypeScript transpiler that does not have too
many dependencies), but it seems that the devs of llhttp use
semi-advanced TypeScript constructs that are at the moment not supported
by Sucrase's transformers. To be specific, I am talking about "Moving
types"[1].

Does anyone know of any other TypeScript transpilers? They do not need
to do typechecking, as long as they allow generation of (valid)
JavaScript files.

- Jelle

C
C
Christopher Baines wrote on 20 Apr 2020 22:31
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87y2qp526z.fsf@cbaines.net
reassign 34526 guix-patches
retitle 34526 Updating node from version 10
thanks
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQKTBAEBCgB9FiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAl6eBqRfFIAAAAAALgAo
aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF
ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcACgkQXiijOwuE
9XctFRAAqIc4o28B5tu7DW/WI6a42SIOrGSNVnS2n2y+zCL7/RDGZ0Yp4f08ptxA
9M9Y0zNpDw4rg0mzp8l4VOv+mV000/YhsUCb79QAMp1rK/RcTW1oWqvsY2hf6ZOP
K2i91IGhbji/fX4AJR4BEGuFkiuaGutfoewjstph3euepDvNqSlNjDKv18kMxOee
i8xpOYM6M501MhNmzqqTfpTMS0uIc8B1XXIpDAv+OVx4hV1jqdS3gGHUOq0ninTd
HgVx+fhl0rH0t8xJS/Q5kAyQijlW0VI7q0S8paYYr8pJBdccAtOuZxY/Kqd3cbzd
/kHSVa95c80tos43OPUsjNcXIBGfnaAcgSCkRSBQ4dJeg7dBgplJeAjkIPoj5jRR
o+cl8ND25lWHJcYl2z/kq75WXZY8NjAWv19JVhQm6WMrMWrnwMOMX/BEeRDGIQ9x
oPYQ2r5o1IjCuQnshqUOeNp6R/jnkwF04/hiH1hEWsHfKIKmPI322teO091LHJ9p
W1Okmr2nZQwH2JzaUfwM9JXC11LfodJ+LffHZyiXXE/X2z+baVBELTovSStUChx9
3OVCFRRX3/2UXukL8wYKz/wiD/cI+wNdMy4rIkPyKzzfrNr8hNA37HQ1eYkWnhHs
n3TMj4Fphye6AdiJnppUXTEPLy6jpOM10ooMcw5UslBGrpSnz9Y=
=rKwZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

C
C
Christopher Baines wrote on 20 Apr 2020 22:49
(address . 34526@debbugs.gnu.org)
87wo6951d2.fsf@cbaines.net
Daniel Gerber <dg@atufi.org> writes:

Toggle quote (2 lines)
> Trying to build the current upstream version, 11.10.0...

I looked at packaging node 12 today, so I've moved this bug to
guix-patches, as that probably makes more sense.

I got something to build, although there are probably various issues,
including bundling strange non-source things in the source.

I'll send a couple of patches to this bug.

Thanks,

Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=9XzL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

M
M
Maxim Cournoyer wrote on 6 Aug 2021 06:06
Re: bug#34526: Updating node from version 10
(name . Christopher Baines)(address . mail@cbaines.net)
877dgzkyig.fsf_-_@gmail.com
Hello Chris!

Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> writes:

Toggle quote (12 lines)
> Daniel Gerber <dg@atufi.org> writes:
>
>> Trying to build the current upstream version, 11.10.0...
>
> I looked at packaging node 12 today, so I've moved this bug to
> guix-patches, as that probably makes more sense.
>
> I got something to build, although there are probably various issues,
> including bundling strange non-source things in the source.
>
> I'll send a couple of patches to this bug.

Did any of these patches end up somewhere for review? Or did you move
on to something else?

Thanks,

Maxim
S
S
Sarah Morgensen wrote on 26 Sep 2021 05:48
(address . 34526-done@debbugs.gnu.org)
86ee9cuhcn.fsf@mgsn.dev
Hi all,

Our current version of node is now 14.16.0 LTS, and the node build
system uses that, so I'm closing this bug. A separate issue should be
opened for adding/updating to newer versions (looks like 16 is
available).

--
Sarah
Closed
?
Your comment

This issue is archived.

To comment on this conversation send email to 34526@debbugs.gnu.org