How about LTS packages?

Dragavnir · 2016-02-15 14:34:53

Disclaimer: I'm going to talk about Node.js here, because that's the software required in my use case, but this applies to all softwares having a LTS version. Also, sorry if the topic has already been discussed, I don't come here really often.

Hey there,

I'm maintaining the AUR package of Cozy, which is written in Node.js (the software, not the package). The fact is that, since this platform is in constant development, and need to be able to run on multiple distros, keeping up to date with the very latest Node.js version isn't really a priority for the dev team and is not possible due to lack of time and resources. That's why they usually use the latest LTS (which is 4.3.0 atm).

The problem with running the platform on Arch is that the Node.js package is already at version 5.6.0. I don't know if there are current compatibility issues between Node 4 & 5, but there may be in the future (and even the Node.js website advises to keep using the LTS if you don't have time for frequent updates), and that's not my point. Also, I know that there's an AUR package for Node.js's LTS version, but Cozy is a personal platform designed to run on small configs (starting from ~1Gb of RAM), and, for these, compiling Node.js can take over 45mins, which is way too long (in my opinion) for an install that should keep simple.

Don't take this the wrong way. I love having and using the latest version of the software I'm using. But sometimes, constantly updating a software's environment to the very latest versions isn't possible for the devs, and what I'm trying to show in my example is that Archlinux doesn't really fit this case right now. That's why I'd like to know if it was possible to consider the addition on the official repos of LTS versions of existing packages (such as nodejs-lts in addition of node), without any influence on the existing packages.

What do you think of this?

runical · 2016-02-15 15:09:01

Sorry to completely ignore the issue at hand, but why not make a bin package if you don't want to spend time compiling the software? NodeJS seems to provide binaries, so it shouldn't be too hard.

Other than that, I can see the need for LTS packages in some cases. The LTS kernel and the python situation are two good examples (although python2 is not technically LTS). I don't think that there should be too many old versions of software in the repositories as Arch is the place for new software. And including older software most likely means supporting older libraries, which in turn require older libraries etc. The situation has the potential to increase the needed work by a lot. The AUR should be the go to place for older software.

Allan · 2016-02-16 02:45:49

Doubtful we will add LTS packages. These take effort to maintain and are against the rolling release principle of this distribution.

fukawi2 · 2016-02-16 03:36:27

This comes up fairly regularly, and while it seems like a reasonable request, you've actually highlighted the problem with the suggestion:

Dragavnir wrote:

....what I'm trying to show in my example is that Archlinux doesn't really fit this case right now

Arch isn't a "stable" platform. Part of what makes Arch what it is is the rolling release methodology. Those who need stable platforms (LTS as you put it) have Debian, RedHat, CentOS, Ubuntu LTS et al. Arch doesn't aim to (and more importantly doesn't need to) compete with the distributions that fill that space.

Arch Linux

#1 2016-02-15 14:34:53

How about LTS packages?

#2 2016-02-15 15:09:01

Re: How about LTS packages?

#3 2016-02-16 02:45:49

Re: How about LTS packages?

#4 2016-02-16 03:36:27

Re: How about LTS packages?

Board footer