Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Updating libuv on 8.x and 10.x #23833

Closed
MylesBorins opened this issue Oct 23, 2018 · 11 comments
Closed

Updating libuv on 8.x and 10.x #23833

MylesBorins opened this issue Oct 23, 2018 · 11 comments

Comments

@MylesBorins
Copy link
Contributor

I believe that certain versions were not backported to 10.x or 8.x as there was an unexpected semver-major

we can use this issue to track status and backporting

/cc @nodejs/libuv @cjihrig @addaleax

@cjihrig
Copy link
Contributor

cjihrig commented Oct 23, 2018

Copying #19455 (comment) regarding accidental breaking changes here in case it helps:

I think you're referring to #22814 and #21203. Both of those issues are fixed. A regression test for #22814 landed in #23051. #23053 fixed #21203, but it's marked as don't land on v10 and earlier. Now, that might be backportable since it reverts a semver major and the version of libuv can now be updated on those older branches

@bnoordhuis
Copy link
Member

bnoordhuis commented Oct 23, 2018

What Colin said. There were bugs (there are always bugs) but no (edit: deliberately) backwards incompatible changes.

@AndrewGuenther
Copy link

AndrewGuenther commented Oct 24, 2018

Just to be clear, is it still the plan to backport updates to libuv to 8.x? I ask because a recent update to libuv on 10.x broke compatibility with older kernels. Relevant commits:

2790db5
c65a523

Does it make sense to introduce this change to 8.x? We've migrated a lot of our services to 8.x since it entered active LTS and this change would force us to roll back hundreds of services to 6.x so that we could continue to get security and stability updates.

I guess my confusion comes from what it means to be "Active LTS." Should these kinds of changes be expected in an active LTS?

@MylesBorins
Copy link
Contributor Author

MylesBorins commented Oct 24, 2018 via email

@AndrewGuenther
Copy link

Excellent. Thanks for the clarification @MylesBorins! So would you say that, in general, we shouldn't have to worry about these kinds of changes during Active LTS?

@bnoordhuis
Copy link
Member

The minimum requirement for v8.x is linux 2.6.32 so no problem there, that's what libuv supports.

v6.x supports 2.6.18 and would be problematic but that's not being discussed, right?

@MylesBorins
Copy link
Contributor Author

MylesBorins commented Oct 26, 2018 via email

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Nov 14, 2018

@MylesBorins Should this remain open?

@AndrewGuenther
Copy link

This upgrade has landed in 8.x now and has broken compatibility with older kernels:

62dd1d7

Systems which could previously run 8.x, which is in LTS, now cannot run 8.x.

@MylesBorins
Copy link
Contributor Author

@AndrewGuenther can you please open an issue to track this along with a description of how to replicate the breakages. If the broken runtime is with our support matrix we will work on getting a fix out asapc

@AndrewGuenther
Copy link

Will do. Happy Thanksgiving!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants