Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 15:32:54 +0200
From: Natanael Copa <ncopa@alpinelinux.org>
To: Jose-Luis Rivas <ghostbar@riseup.net>
Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?B?U/ZyZW4=?= Tempel <soeren@soeren-tempel.net>,
 alpine-aports@lists.alpinelinux.org
Subject: Re: [alpine-aports] [PATCH] testing/nodejs-stable: new aport
Message-ID: <20160411153254.35e8c830@ncopa-desktop.alpinelinux.org>
In-Reply-To: <20160309212446.GA1396@riseup.net>
References: <20160229190942.GA6571@riseup.net>
	<20160309155213.GA9700@calcium.lan>
	<20160309212446.GA1396@riseup.net>
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 16:24:46 -0500
Jose-Luis Rivas <ghostbar@riseup.net> wrote:

> On 09/03/16, 04:52pm, S=F6ren Tempel wrote:
> > On 29.02.16, Jose-Luis Rivas wrote: =20
> > > 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).
> > >=20
> > > There's a replace against nodejs so there's no conflicts when someone
> > > tries to install them together. =20
> >=20
> > 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.
> >  =20
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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)
>=20

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
---