Mail archive
alpine-aports

Re: [alpine-aports] [PATCH] testing/nodejs-stable: new aport

From: Natanael Copa <ncopa_at_alpinelinux.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 15:32:54 +0200

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 16:24:46 -0500
Jose-Luis Rivas <ghostbar_at_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_at_lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-aports+help_at_lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Received on Mon Apr 11 2016 - 15:32:54 GMT