Mail archive

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

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

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 16:24:46 -0500
Jose-Luis Rivas <> 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?


Received on Mon Apr 11 2016 - 15:32:54 UTC