From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg?= Krause Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:35:40 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/3] package/nodejs: Add version 5.2.0 In-Reply-To: <20151214211045.GA4152@free.fr> References: <1450122295-5311-1-git-send-email-martin@barkynet.com> <20151214210913.227563c9@free-electrons.com> <20151214214337.2933ea41@free-electrons.com> <20151214211045.GA4152@free.fr> Message-ID: <1450132540.4928.24.camel@embedded.rocks> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Mo, 2015-12-14 at 22:10 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > Thomas, All, > > On 2015-12-14 21:43 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly: > > On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:24:30 +0000, Martin Bark wrote: > > > I'm not sure the answer to that.??What i can say is that all four > > > are > > > getting maintained.??Also, according to https://github.com/nodejs > > > /LTS > > > node.js 0.10.x will be maintained all the way until October 2016. > > > > > > I see two logical approaches for buildroot: > > > > > > 1) Support all four in buildroot because node.js support all four > > > 2) Only Support the 4.x and 5.x because they are the current LTS > > > and > > > Stable releases (i.e. the ones on the front page of > > > https://nodejs.org) > > > > > > Personally I'd vote for 2) because it simplifies things. > > > > > > What are your thoughts? > > > > I'm fine with option (2) as well, but do we have other NodeJS users > > that would like to see 0.10.x and 0.12.x being kept? > > > > Is there any issue for users of 0.10.x/0.12.x to migrate to 4.2 or > > 5.2 ? > > We do have the various version of nodejs, because: > > ? - 4.2.x needs gcc >= 4.8 and armv6+ > ? - 0.12.x needs armv6+ > ? - 0.10.x has not requirement > > Going back in our history: > > ? - we had nodejs-0.10 > ? - someone proposed to bump to 0.12 > ? - someone else wanted to keep 0.10 around because of armv6+ > ????requirement > ? - so we added 0.12, and kept 0.10 > ? - the story repeated itself with 4.2.x > > So, I think we have a few options here: > > ?1) keep all the three existing versions, add 5.2 > ?2) keep 0.10 and 0.12, replace 4.2 with 5.2 > ?3) keep 0.10, ditch 0.12, replace 4.2 with 5.2 > ?4) dith 0.10 and 0.12, replace 4.2 with 5.2 > > I would lean toward either 2 or 3. > > 3 is IMHO the best solution: 5.2 is the best choice when all the > conditions are met; 0.10 is the fallback, maybe not the optimum in > case 0.12 would have fit, but since that's a fallback I don't think > it matters much... > As 4.x is a LTS release I would not drop it for the 5.x release. I would keep all the three version we have - they are all still maintained and v0.12 and v4 are both even LTS releases. New versions are often not compatible with older versions of Node.js - it's similiar to Lua. So I would lean toward 1. Best regards J?rg Krause