From nobody Fri Mar 29 07:12:50 2024 X-Original-To: alpine-aports@mail.alpinelinux.org Delivered-To: alpine-aports@mail.alpinelinux.org Received: from mail.alpinelinux.org (dallas-a1.alpinelinux.org [127.0.0.1]) by mail.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16E17DC7E6A for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 15:59:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from newmail.tetrasec.net (unknown [74.117.189.117]) by mail.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA74ADC7E4D for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 15:59:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ncopa-desktop.alpinelinux.org (229.63.200.37.customer.cdi.no [37.200.63.229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: n@tanael.org) by newmail.tetrasec.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 10BE45A0802; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 15:59:54 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:59:49 +0200 From: Natanael Copa To: Jose-Luis Rivas Cc: alpine-aports@lists.alpinelinux.org Subject: Re: [alpine-aports] [PATCH] testing/nodejs-stable: new aport Message-ID: <20160411175949.247bd014@ncopa-desktop.alpinelinux.org> In-Reply-To: <20160411062138.GA1376@riseup.net> References: <20160229190942.GA6571@riseup.net> <20160309155213.GA9700@calcium.lan> <20160309212446.GA1396@riseup.net> <20160411153254.35e8c830@ncopa-desktop.alpinelinux.org> <20160411062138.GA1376@riseup.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.28; x86_64-alpine-linux-musl) X-Mailinglist: alpine-aports Precedence: list List-Id: Alpine Development List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 02:21:38 -0400 Jose-Luis Rivas wrote: > On 11/04/16, 03:32pm, Natanael Copa wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 16:24:46 -0500 > > Jose-Luis Rivas wrote: > > > > > On 09/03/16, 04:52pm, S?ren 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? > > My reasoning for the name proposal: nodejs-stable moves way faster, and > they use that name. There it may happen that nodejs v5.x.x could move to > v6.x.x and still be the stable branch without v5.x.x moving to -lts. > > I do actually maintain these packages on my private repos and I did name > them nodejs-lts and nodejs (this one meaning the stable channel) but I > don't know if that would be a good idea. (Maybe it is and I have the > wrong vision about this). > > My 2 cents. I think that naming them nodejs and nodejs-lts makes more sense. If you just want node to play around, you'd do `apk add nodejs` and you'd gett the latest and greatest. (eg nodejs-stable) If you are pushing something for production and know what you are doing, you probably want -lts. Then you probably also do the needed research to figure out that you want nodejs-lts. I don't think it will cause any unexpected breakages. If you upgrade from alpine 3.3 to 3.4 you can expect packages to do major upgrades. Lets do nodejs and nodejs-lts. -nc --- Unsubscribe: alpine-aports+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org Help: alpine-aports+help@lists.alpinelinux.org ---