We have the LTS release on main/nodejs and the new features are being
added to the stable release which is at v5.7.0 (vs v4.3.1 for LTS).
There's a replace against nodejs so there's no conflicts when someone
tries to install them together.
---
testing/nodejs-stable/APKBUILD | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 50 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 testing/nodejs-stable/APKBUILD
diff --git a/testing/nodejs-stable/APKBUILD b/testing/nodejs-stable/APKBUILD
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..79bd31f
--- /dev/null+++ b/testing/nodejs-stable/APKBUILD
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# Maintainer: Jose-Luis Rivas <ghostbar@riseup.net>+pkgname=nodejs-stable+pkgver=5.7.0+pkgrel=0+pkgdesc='Evented I/O for V8 javascript'+url='https://nodejs.org/'+arch='all'+license='MIT'+makedepends="$depends_dev python openssl-dev zlib-dev libuv-dev+ linux-headers binutils-gold paxmark"+subpackages="$pkgname-dev $pkgname-doc"+source="https://nodejs.org/dist/v$pkgver/node-v$pkgver.tar.gz"+replaces="nodejs"+_builddir="$srcdir/node-v$pkgver"++prepare() {+ local i+ cd "$_builddir"+ for i in $source; do+ case "$i" in+ *.patch) msg "$i"; patch -p1 -i "$srcdir/$i" || return 1;;+ esac+ done+}++build() {+ cd "$_builddir"+ ./configure --prefix=/usr \+ --shared-zlib \+ --shared-libuv \+ --shared-openssl || return 1+ make || return 1+}++package() {+ local d+ cd "$_builddir"+ make DESTDIR="$pkgdir" install || return 1+ # paxmark so JIT works+ paxmark -m "$pkgdir"/usr/bin/node || return 1++ cp -pr "$pkgdir"/usr/lib/node_modules/npm/man "$pkgdir"/usr/share || return 1+ for d in doc html man; do+ rm -r "$pkgdir"/usr/lib/node_modules/npm/$d || return 1+ done+}++md5sums="8ab282434c79bedcfd20c0b74f66e38e node-v5.7.0.tar.gz"+sha256sums="2338b46a2f45fbb747089c66931f62555f25a5928511d3a43bbb3a39dcded2d8 node-v5.7.0.tar.gz"+sha512sums="82ff8d6339c0b065684f02f79bb739365eda3110f8e69e9296453eb5a63584c978d93c87d8ef2350498abaa7b16cabfa62954dce401e82730cac61d6af62f8fe node-v5.7.0.tar.gz"
--
2.7.2
--
⨳ PGP 0x13EC43EEB9AC8C43 ⨳ https://ghostbar.co
On 09/03/16, 04:52pm, Sören Tempel wrote:
> On 29.02.16, Jose-Luis Rivas wrote:> > We have the LTS release on main/nodejs and the new features are being> > added to the stable release which is at v5.7.0 (vs v4.3.1 for LTS).> > > > There's a replace against nodejs so there's no conflicts when someone> > tries to install them together.> > Do we really want to maintain two different versions of nodejs?> Personally I don't think that it is a good idea to maintain both the> newest and the LTS version of a software in the official repositories.> The only package that I know of where we do this currently is firefox> and I don't think that it has worked very well in the past with firefox.>
They do differ quite a lot and most production units are using
nodejs-lts (the one we have already as plain nodejs) yet the newer
features are being added to nodejs-stable. While some things may fail on
nodejs-stable everything will work on nodejs-lts.
That's the reason why I see having the two versions of it would be
useful. nodejs-stable is not necessarily the newest, since lts keeps
getting updates, but not new features. (Yet, newer releases tend to be
synced between both versions)
--
⨳ PGP 0x13EC43EEB9AC8C43 ⨳ https://ghostbar.co
On 29.02.16, Jose-Luis Rivas wrote:
> We have the LTS release on main/nodejs and the new features are being> added to the stable release which is at v5.7.0 (vs v4.3.1 for LTS).> > There's a replace against nodejs so there's no conflicts when someone> tries to install them together.
Do we really want to maintain two different versions of nodejs?
Personally I don't think that it is a good idea to maintain both the
newest and the LTS version of a software in the official repositories.
The only package that I know of where we do this currently is firefox
and I don't think that it has worked very well in the past with firefox.
Sören.
---
Unsubscribe: alpine-aports+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help: alpine-aports+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---
On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 16:24:46 -0500
Jose-Luis Rivas <ghostbar@riseup.net> wrote:
> On 09/03/16, 04:52pm, Sören Tempel wrote:> > On 29.02.16, Jose-Luis Rivas wrote: > > > We have the LTS release on main/nodejs and the new features are being> > > added to the stable release which is at v5.7.0 (vs v4.3.1 for LTS).> > > > > > There's a replace against nodejs so there's no conflicts when someone> > > tries to install them together. > > > > Do we really want to maintain two different versions of nodejs?> > Personally I don't think that it is a good idea to maintain both the> > newest and the LTS version of a software in the official repositories.> > The only package that I know of where we do this currently is firefox> > and I don't think that it has worked very well in the past with firefox.> > > > They do differ quite a lot and most production units are using> nodejs-lts (the one we have already as plain nodejs) yet the newer> features are being added to nodejs-stable. While some things may fail on> nodejs-stable everything will work on nodejs-lts.> > That's the reason why I see having the two versions of it would be> useful. nodejs-stable is not necessarily the newest, since lts keeps> getting updates, but not new features. (Yet, newer releases tend to be> synced between both versions)>
I think I am ok with maintaining both. I wonder if we want call them
'nodejs' and 'nodejs-stable' though. If i would see those variants I
would believe that nodejs-stable would be the mode suitable for
production, while in this case the lts is what you'd want for that.
Maybe we all them nodejs4 and nodejs5?
Other ideas?
-nc
---
Unsubscribe: alpine-aports+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help: alpine-aports+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---