nvm
nvm copied to clipboard
nvm-sh
Alpine linux tuning
There is no binary for Alpine Linux right now, should set nobinary=1 right now, could do the same thing as Solaris to determine if there is binary since certain version.
In general, all this check does, on FreeBSD (and now Alpine) is skip a single http request - I'm kind of inclined to just remove the check, and always check for a binary.
As we can see right now, there may never be a FreeBSD binary at the moment, so the binary check for FreeBSD will be meaningless but make nvm slower, I believe that Alpine part will still need a while and may not have the builds for old versions , we can change the code to the current solaris style to do the old versions check locally and check the new ones online, what do you think?
@ljharb are you good with current pattern just like FreeBSD and would be like solaris? I updated the PR :D
I think a better approach would be removing this check entirely, and improving the error message from this:
Downloading https://nodejs.org/dist/v0.10.10/node-v0.10.10-freebsd-x64.tar.gz...
######################################################################## 100.0%
Computing checksum with shasum -a 256
Provided checksum to compare to is empty.
tar: Unrecognized archive format
tar: Error exit delayed from previous errors.
Binary download failed, trying source.
to determine when it's a 404.
I think the extra cost of an http request to determine if there is a binary archive is worth it, on both freebsd and alpine. (that said, i'm still totally down with adding alpine detection to nvm_get_os, even if we don't have a use for it yet)
@ljharb one critical problem, we don't know the naming at all, and they probably will never release binary package, could we just do that once the binary naming is out? I think it's not only about the overhead.
I'm not sure why you're thinking they never will release one - both of those are under active discussion right now.
Either way I'd prefer to just pick a name and delegate the authority to nodejs.org, since that's easier to update than nvm is.
I think that's not the BSD style, as you can see in our very early discussion. So would you like to just ask them about the name?
Can we just make this work and once we have some conclusion on the naming, then make a new change? Maybe we don't need to stuck by that :)
Is this particularly urgent? The only effect I see is that nvm install will be slightly faster on alpine linux.
Not urgent at all but I think maybe we don't need to stuck for that reason :)
Just wondering if an OS being supported can be found in the index.tab file instead of determined by 404?
@PeterDaveHello hm, that sounds like an awesome idea for an improvement - i'm not sure if the index.tab properly lists all files that are actually present though. Worth looking into!