Skip to content

download headers tarball for ~0.12.10 || ~0.10.42 #877

New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

rvagg
Copy link
Member

@rvagg rvagg commented Feb 12, 2016

/R= @nodejs/build @ljharb I guess

@rvagg
Copy link
Member Author

rvagg commented Feb 12, 2016

I'd consider this a semver-minor and warrants introduction into npm@2 if we can manage it. There's some queued up changes that need to go out with the next 0.10 and 0.12 so that could be done fairly soon. So /cc @zkat.

@@ -93,7 +95,7 @@ function processRelease (argv, gyp, defaultVersion, defaultRelease) {
// making the bold assumption that anything with a version number >3.0.0 will
// have a *-headers.tar.gz file in its dist location, even some frankenstein
// custom version
tarballUrl = url.resolve(baseUrl, name + '-v' + version + (versionSemver.major >= 3 ? '-headers' : '') + '.tar.gz')
tarballUrl = url.resolve(baseUrl, name + '-v' + version + (semver.satisfies(versionSemver, headersTarballRange) ? '-headers' : '') + '.tar.gz')
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overlong line.

@bnoordhuis
Copy link
Member

LGTM sans style nit. The commit log could go into more detail.

Properly created -headers.tar.gz files were not available until
v0.12.10 and v0.10.42 (in addition to >= 3).
@rvagg rvagg force-pushed the headers-0.10-0.12 branch from 9ecd001 to 941e24f Compare February 13, 2016 01:50
@rvagg
Copy link
Member Author

rvagg commented Feb 13, 2016

thanks @bnoordhuis, both addressed

This was referenced Feb 13, 2016
@bnoordhuis
Copy link
Member

LGTM but can you s/^download/Download before you land it?

@jbergstroem
Copy link
Member

Do we care about xz at this stage? Benefitting from headers only is good enough? Anyway, I can likely represent the Internet Bandwidth Committee stating LGTM.

@rvagg
Copy link
Member Author

rvagg commented Feb 14, 2016

@jbergstroem I'd love to use xz for these but we don't have xz support from zlib so uncompressing them without invoking system tools is tricky. I've considered pulling in a JS implementation but haven't done any research on whether they exist or whether they are any good. Given that we're talking about ~500kb the effort in researching and coding it up is unlikely to yield enough benefit to warrant me bothering!

@rvagg
Copy link
Member Author

rvagg commented Feb 14, 2016

^ that's not to say I wouldn't support someone else doing this work if they feel it's an interesting enough challenge and worth their time, it's just not worth my time

@rvagg rvagg closed this Feb 15, 2016
@rvagg rvagg deleted the headers-0.10-0.12 branch February 15, 2016 00:18
rvagg added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 15, 2016
Properly created -headers.tar.gz files were not available until
v0.12.10 and v0.10.42 (in addition to >= 3).

PR-URL: #877
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Reviewed-By: Johan Bergström <bugs@bergstroem.nu>
@rvagg
Copy link
Member Author

rvagg commented Feb 15, 2016

landed @ 070fe69

rvagg added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 15, 2016
Properly created -headers.tar.gz files were not available until
v0.12.10 and v0.10.42 (in addition to >= 3).

PR-URL: #877
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Reviewed-By: Johan Bergström <bugs@bergstroem.nu>
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants