Some of you may know, we have a secondary repo for nodejs who'd like to
move off of 0.10.38:
WARNING, bonescript and a few other default nodejs libraries haven't been
ported to 4.2.x
sudo nano /etc/apt/sources.list (add:)
deb [arch=armhf] http://repos.rcn-ee.com/debian-nodejs/ jessie main
Then
>
> *Wheezy users, sorry gcc is just too old, you'll be stuck on 0.10.38 (i'm
> trying to atleast give you: 0.10.41)*
>
Does 0.10.41 really offer that much in the way of improvements ? Also, why
is gcc too old ? Something that is potentially portable, or not ?
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Robe
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 4:21 PM, William Hermans wrote:
> *Wheezy users, sorry gcc is just too old, you'll be stuck on 0.10.38 (i'm
>> trying to atleast give you: 0.10.41)*
>>
>
> Does 0.10.41 really offer that much in the way of improvements ? Also, why
> is gcc too old ? Something that is potent
hmmm . . .
https://nodejs.org/dist/v5.2.0/node-v5.2.0-linux-armv7l.tar.xz
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Robert Nelson
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 4:21 PM, William Hermans wrote:
>
>> *Wheezy users, sorry gcc is just too old, you'll be stuck on 0.10.38 (i'm
>>> trying to atleast give
Robert,
I'm considering setting this up and testing. Currently working on an x86-64
Nodejs server, when I ran into that. Taking notes for setup so should be
pretty much a copy paste experience for the BBB.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:42 AM, William Hermans wrote:
> hmmm . . .
>
> https://nodejs.
Scratch that. This version does not seem to work well with the packages I
intend on using.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:44 AM, William Hermans wrote:
> Robert,
>
> I'm considering setting this up and testing. Currently working on an
> x86-64 Nodejs server, when I ran into that. Taking notes for se
4.x is the new LTS version whilst 5.x is "stable". I would stick with 4.x
and it is a HUGE improvement over the older versions as they have now
merged with iojs which kept up to date with V8 improvements.
Lee
On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 6:26:15 PM UTC, William Hermans wrote:
>
> Scratch
I'm probably going to stick with 0.10.41
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Lee Armstrong wrote:
> 4.x is the new LTS version whilst 5.x is "stable". I would stick with 4.x
> and it is a HUGE improvement over the older versions as they have now
> merged with iojs which kept up to date with V8 im
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 2:36 PM, William Hermans wrote:
> I'm probably going to stick with 0.10.41
No luck with 4.2.x?
Regards,
--
Robert Nelson
https://rcn-ee.com/
--
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Goog
Can't install 4.2 on an x86 / x86-64 system through APT. It pulls in 5.2.x,
as does the crappy Nodejs wiki script.
This takes me back to the 90's again, when many things( Linux ) failed on
installation, and it's really starting to aggravate me.
The packages I'm having issues with is phantom.js, w
Actually, APT attempts to pull in 0.10.33 I think the install output was
saying. Either way, it was not working correctly.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:57 PM, William Hermans wrote:
> Can't install 4.2 on an x86 / x86-64 system through APT. It pulls in
> 5.2.x, as does the crappy Nodejs wiki script
Giving this https://github.com/mark-webster/node-debian a shot. Sure beats
having to find a good method for building manually. Seems to be working
great so far for v4.2.3
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 2:10 PM, William Hermans wrote:
> Actually, APT attempts to pull in 0.10.33 I think the install outpu
Well, phantom.js installed fine with node v4.2.3. That build script is
awesome, reminds me of your scripts Robert ;) Only 57 lines of code too . .
.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 3:13 PM, William Hermans wrote:
> Giving this https://github.com/mark-webster/node-debian a shot. Sure
> beats having to fi
13 matches
Mail list logo
