From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vicente Olivert Riera Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:26:29 +0000 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/3] package/nodejs: Add version 5.2.0 In-Reply-To: <1450132540.4928.24.camel@embedded.rocks> References: <1450122295-5311-1-git-send-email-martin@barkynet.com> <20151214210913.227563c9@free-electrons.com> <20151214214337.2933ea41@free-electrons.com> <20151214211045.GA4152@free.fr> <1450132540.4928.24.camel@embedded.rocks> Message-ID: <56714A65.80301@imgtec.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear all, On 14/12/15 22:35, J?rg Krause wrote: > 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. I agree with you. Dropping a LTS version doesn't look good to me. We could do it when it's not maintained anymore. Right now I vote for keeping the three versions we already have plus adding the 5.2.0 because is the new stable: option 1. Regards, Vincent.