Hi, What we should realize is node is not stable yet. And what we say stable is not the stable meant by other systems (like python, ruby)
Its is the 100 responsibility of the developer/maintainers of the app to take care about the node version they need and get it installed on the system. This is not a big problem in any server side app since developers and dev ops guys have the full control. If we talk about desktop apps, we have to ship an app runs on thousands of computers. And those users are not aware of node and npm. And they never need to know about them. Then the developer/maintainer must ensure when his app gets the correct node version rather depend on the underline system. This is true for at least we hit 1.0 If I were asked to ship any app to debian this is what I do 1. I may ship node binaries with your app (and it should not crash the system's node too) 2. If I feel it is too big (~5MB), then I will download node in the first run of the app Cheers. On Thursday, January 17, 2013, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:49:04PM -0800, Mikeal Rogers wrote: > > > > On Jan 16, 2013, at January 16, 20131:20 PM, Paul Tagliamonte < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:09:03PM -0800, Mikeal Rogers wrote: > > >> > > >> On Jan 16, 2013, at January 16, 201312:48 PM, Paul Tagliamonte < > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:42:32PM -0800, Mikeal Rogers wrote: > > >>>> There seems to be a slight miss-match between Debian process and > node process that I'd like to flush out. > > >>>> > > >>>> First off, node is unstable until it hits 1.0, period. All node > releases, especially old ones, are unstable. > > >>>> > > >>>> Node is not Ruby or Python and shouldn't be treated as such in > Debian. Debian should not allow packages to be added that "depend" on node, > ever. This is a big departure from what you're probably used to with Ruby > and Python but this is "how things work" w/ node and it would be better for > Debian to accept that rather than compete with it. > > >>> > > >>> So, you're saying we shouldn't allow apps like TileMill onto end > users > > >>> computers? Why? > > >> > > >> I should clarify, Debian should not allow *node* packages to be added > that depend on node. > > > > > > How can we fill the deps without them being tracked too? > > > > Don't :) > > > > This is my point, and it's actually how TileMill/MapBox works currently. > > > > > > > >> > > >> TileMill requires MapBox which requires Node 0.6 or greater. It then > uses npm to install all the dependent npm modules. TileMill has the ability > to require a particular version of node via whatever build system it's > targetted for, including Debian, but notice that it does *not* using any of > those system to install node packages, it uses npm. TileMill is using the > OS package manager to get node, and that's it. > > >> > > >> By requiring an older "stable" version of node you're incentivizing > people to target old versions of node, which are unstable and no longer > supported. I'll tell you right now, any package that you say is "stable" in > the Debian package manager that needs 0.6 and fails on 0.8 is an immensely > unstable piece of software and shouldn't be included in your Debian > "stable" branch :) > > > > > > While I agree totally (I was the one who wanted to see this changed in > > > the first place, I think you and I agree very much) with regards to > what > > > we aught to be shipping in stable, the issue is, 0.6 was released in > our > > > freeze, far too late for a breaking upstream. > > > > > > The idea here is that our packages are *stable*. If we upgrade node, we > > > have to upgrade all our apps and libs, which leads to big changes, > which > > > leads to instability, which leads to bugs. > > > > > > As you are no doubt aware, Debian releases when bugs hit 0, not on a > > > timer. > > > > IMO, any node packages that requires pre-0.8 (before we guaranteed much > compatibility between releases) is not stable software because node was not > stable and you shouldn't include in a Debian release. Even 0.8 might is > ify. I'm saying this as a node diehard: if you really mean stable then node > programs 0.6 and before *aren't*. > > > > Honestly, the thing I'm worried about more than these 0.6 -> 0.8 -> 0.10 > issues are what happens when we get to 1.0. After the node.js 1.0 release > we will not break compatibility again until 2.0, and probably won't even > then. We won't change or add *any* API in that time and we'll be even more > serious about testing each release than we are now (and we're pretty > serious now). At that point Debian should take all even 1.x releases > because they will solely be stability, security, performance, and bug fixes > and will not break any programs that relied on earlier 1.x releases. > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Node 0.8 is more stable than 0.6 by any definition of "stable." The > definition of stability you are citing, which is based Ruby/Python/Perl, > that packages which depend on a particular version can't be updated > frivolously, should not exist because Debian should not allow a program to > be added to the package manager that depends on node. > > >>>> > > >>>> It is node and npm's responsibility to install node programs, > resolve dependencies, and not allhttp://wiki.debian.org/Javascript/Policy > > http://wiki.debian.org/Javascript > > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel > > You're welcome to help contribute! > > > > > Being that there are some mismatches between these community standards > (licensing being a central one) I think it's more productive for Debian to > acknowledge them and surface that to Debian users rather than to think that > node programs will ever be able to fit within the standards you're trying > to uphold. > > > > > > > > Heck, you'd even be making sure gather.at stays up and running :) > > > > Thanks, and I'm glad you like our product :) > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > >>> Fondly, > > >>> Paul > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks > > >>>> -Mikeal > > >>>> > > >>>> On Jan 15, 2013, at January 15, 20138:57 AM, Paul Tagliamonte < > [email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:50:20AM -0500, Chad Engler wrote: > > >>>>>> +1 for nvm, I got really tired of waiting for package updates in > different > > >>>>>> distros. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> So, let me jump in this before it becomes a dogpile on Debian, > which I > > >>>>> think is unfair, frankly. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I hate that Debian *unstable* is out of date -- no matter what. If > not > > >>>>> (because of a big, important package), I'd expect it to find it's > way > > >>>>> into Debian Experimental. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> However -- remember, Debian isn't a "for developers" Distro, like, > at > > >>>>> all. It's reputation is for *stability* -- think of it this way -- > 99% > > >>>>> of the users of Debian (and downstreams, like Ubuntu, Knoppix, > Mint, > > >>>>> etc) don't even know what their app is written in. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> If you do production work, you know it *sucks* when your distro > removes > > >>>>> something from under you -- and that's what stable branches are > for. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> It's our job (as Distro hackers) to keep things *stable*. The > issue with > > >>>>> updating our Stable branch too quickly is that API breaks on core > > >>>>> packages (like Node) and all the apps using it break. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> We don't package for developers :) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> If we update all the apps to latest upstream all the time, what's > the > > >>>>> point in a stable release? :) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> So, to directly address this; that is expected. Developers can't be > > >>>>> expected to be happy with the default version of Python or Node or > Ruby > > >>>>> in *any* production-worthy distro, because it's going to be (by > virtue > > >>>>> of being tested) out of date. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> That being said, I do think Node should be updated in Experimental > > >>>>> (since we're in freeze, we can't update testing / stable, so we > need to > > >>>>> keep that path clear). > > >>>>> > > >>>>> From a huge node fan, > > >>>>> Paul > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> -Chad > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf > > >>>>>> Of Arunoda Susiripala > > >>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 10:49 PM > > >>>>>> To: [email protected] > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [nodejs] Re: Debian Nodejs Package Maintainer > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Install binaries from [1]nodejs.org or use a tool like nvm > > >>>>> -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
