doc: reorganize platform list

[kleisauke]

See the individual commits for more details.

[nodejs-github-bot]

Review requested:

• @nodejs/build
• @nodejs/tsc

[sxa]

As a possible follow-up, we could also mention the musl-based Linux arm64 binaries

+1 to this since we're now building it so it's as experimental as some of the others in the table.

Commenting as opposed to approving/rejecting as I'd like to see the arm64 change in but I won't block if you want to do it separately :-)

[kleisauke]

@sxa I just opened PR #61589 to include the musl-based Linux arm64 binaries into the platform list.

[legendecas]

Is https://github.com/nodejs/unofficial-builds/blob/main/recipes/musl/Dockerfile used for every active release lines (v20.x, v22.x, v24.x, v25.x)?

[kleisauke]

Is https://github.com/nodejs/unofficial-builds/blob/main/recipes/musl/Dockerfile used for every active release lines (v20.x, v22.x, v24.x, v25.x)?

I believe so. Given that commit nodejs/unofficial-builds@d8eaee5 landed on May 6, 2024, the binaries built with Alpine 3.19 likely correspond to the version range: ^20.13.0 || ^22.2.0 || >=24.0.0.

[richardlau]

This part of the doc doesn't refer to compatibility of the unofficial binaries -- it is supposed to indicate compatibility in general for that platform (e.g. building from source yourself). They are most likely best guesses because I don't think anyone has tried to extensively test Node.js against kernel versions.

The requirements to run the official binaries are in the "Official binary platforms and toolchains" section. There is no section for unofficial builds, and I would block any addition/mention of unofficial builds to BUILDING.md (as unofficial builds are unofficial).

[richardlau]

I'm -1 on mentioning unofficial-builds in this document. We do not want people relying on them.

[kleisauke]

Understood. The mention has been removed.