build: enable xz compressed tarballs where possible (v0.12 and v0.10)#4894
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Conversation
rvagg commented Jan 27, 2016
this logic is the same as |
bnoordhuis commented Jan 27, 2016
LGTM FWIW. I'd be okay with making it non-conditional, mandating that |
rvagg commented Jan 27, 2016
@bnoordhuis as per the notes, it's annoying on OSX, hence the conditional |
bnoordhuis commented Jan 27, 2016
I saw that but I assume the OS X buildbots will have it installed so when would it be an issue? People don't generally run it manually, do they? |
rvagg commented Jan 27, 2016
Yeah, mainly just the release build machines and this is one of the criteria for those, I don't think it gets run much in the wild but it can be used to build tarballs if you download source and I suspect there are come companies out there doing that, unlikely that they'd be doing it for OSX, however! |
jbergstroem commented Jan 27, 2016
LGTM here too. I don't mind the conditional much. |
richardlau commented Jan 27, 2016
I'd prefer the conditional to be consistent with the current v4.x. In addition to OS X, AIX also does not have |
chorrell commented Jan 27, 2016
Great! |
jasnell commented Jan 27, 2016
LGTM |
ljharb commented Jan 27, 2016
so in semver-speak |
jbergstroem commented Jan 27, 2016
@ljharb I think it should be |
ljharb commented Jan 27, 2016
@rvagg any possibility of completing >= 1.0.0 with |
jbergstroem commented Jan 27, 2016
@ljharb that'd be painful. Is it important? I mean, 0.10, 0.12 starts midway too. |
ljharb commented Jan 27, 2016
I don't have visibility into how painful it is for you folks - but every version i have to hardcode into nvm is painful in a long-term sense, whereas creating the xz's seems like it would be painful once. |
jbergstroem commented Jan 27, 2016
@ljharb last I checked we did that xz/version check where we just hardcode lowest required versions. Shouldn't that be an ok compromise? |
ljharb commented Jan 28, 2016
Yes, currently we hardcode 1 version. The current suggestion seems to indicate I'd have to hardcode 3. Just trying to minimize how many I have to manage. |
rvagg commented Jan 28, 2016
OK, this is a little bit complicated and there are multiple concerns here, both for version managers and for node-gyp. I believe the correct ranges are:
i.e.
Clear as mud? |
ljharb commented Jan 28, 2016
Thank you for documenting it. Any "backfills" you can do that will condense those three rows, or their resulting columns, into a smaller number of combinations than 9, would be appreciated :-) |
PR-URL: #4894 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Johan Bergström <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
PR-URL: #4894 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Johan Bergström <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
rvagg commented Jan 28, 2016
|
rvagg commented Jan 28, 2016
Every tarball has an |
PR-URL: #4894 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Johan Bergström <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
PR-URL: #4894 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Johan Bergström <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
PR-URL: #4894 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Johan Bergström <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
PR-URL: #4894 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Johan Bergström <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
PR-URL: nodejs/node#4894 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Johan Bergström <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
8 participants
Continuing on from nodejs/build#284
/cc @chorrell, @mscdex, @ljharb, @nodejs/build
We didn't actually agree on anything there but I'm in a why not mood right now.
This will mean that we get .xz tarballs from v0.12.10 and v0.10.42 onwards for those lines. Backing up and providing .xz tarballs for the others is impossible unless we exclude them from the signed SHASUMS file, which is far from ideal so I'm a strong -1 on completing v0.12 and v0.10. Tools like nvm will just have to hardwire in versions numbers for determining when to use .xz and when to use .gz. We're going to have to do something similar in node-gyp to use header files for older versions now that we have them fixed (the same versions will finally have a proper header tarball that can be used).