# Build Error within aerospike-client-c-src-4.6.8 **URL:** \ **Category:** Node.js Client\ **Created:** [November 13, 2019, 12:40pm UTC](https://discuss.aerospike.com/t/build-error-within-aerospike-client-c-src-4-6-8/6820 "2019-11-13T12:40:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![fschaeffler](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/discuss.aerospike.com/fschaeffler/32/1301_2.png) [@fschaeffler](https://discuss.aerospike.com/u/fschaeffler)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2019, 12:40pm UTC](https://discuss.aerospike.com/t/build-error-within-aerospike-client-c-src-4-6-8/6820/1 "2019-11-13T12:40:46Z")
I’m trying to put the Aerospike Node.js client into an alpine Docker container. This needs some building the client-c-src. The actual build process is split up into 3 different stages. - Stage 1: Build Aerospike C client (this one succeeds) - Stage 2: Build Aerospike Node.js client (this one fails) - Stage 3: Aerospike Node.js Runtime (this one is skipped) FYI: The Dockerfile and the build logs are attached to this post. [docker.tar.gz](https://discuss.aerospike.com/uploads/short-url/aJd1f3NnfeFSuJzPUKGZYx01dyL.gz) (16.9 KB) Basically the issue is that node-gyp rebuild is failing at some point with the following error message. ``` ../src/main/enums/status.cc: In function 'v8::Local status()': ../src/main/enums/status.cc:90:49: error: 'AEROSPIKE_ERR_LARGE_ITEM_NOT_FOUND' was not declared in this scope set(obj, "AEROSPIKE_ERR_LARGE_ITEM_NOT_FOUND", AEROSPIKE_ERR_LARGE_ITEM_NOT_FOUND); ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~../src/main/enums/status.cc:26:92: note: in definition of macro 'set' #define set( __obj,__ name, __value)__obj->Set(Nan::New(__name).ToLocalChecked(), Nan::New(__value)) ^ ~~~~~~../src/main/enums/status.cc:90:49: note: suggested alternative: 'AEROSPIKE_ERR_LUA_FILE_NOT_FOUND' set(obj, "AEROSPIKE_ERR_LARGE_ITEM_NOT_FOUND", AEROSPIKE_ERR_LARGE_ITEM_NOT_FOUND); ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~../src/main/enums/status.cc:26:92: note: in definition of macro 'set' #define set( __obj,__ name, __value)__obj->Set(Nan::New(__name).ToLocalChecked(), Nan::New(__value)) ^ ~~~~~~ ``` Has anyone stumbled upon a similar issue and can point me here in the right direction? ---
**Author:** ![Jan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/discuss.aerospike.com/jan/32/1124_2.png) [@Jan](https://discuss.aerospike.com/u/Jan)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 6:01pm UTC](https://discuss.aerospike.com/t/build-error-within-aerospike-client-c-src-4-6-8/6820/2 "2019-11-14T18:01:19Z")
You need to use compatible Node.js & C client versions. The latest released Node.js client v3.13.0 requires C client v4.6.7: [aerospike-client-nodejs/aerospike-client-c.ini at v3.13.0 · aerospike/aerospike-client-nodejs · GitHub](https://github.com/aerospike/aerospike-client-nodejs/blob/v3.13.0/aerospike-client-c.ini) Only the next Node.js client version (v3.14.0) will be compatible with v4.6.8 of the C client: [Update C client to v4.6.8 by jhecking · Pull Request #321 · aerospike/aerospike-client-nodejs · GitHub](https://github.com/aerospike/aerospike-client-nodejs/pull/321) ---
**Author:** ![fschaeffler](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/discuss.aerospike.com/fschaeffler/32/1301_2.png) [@fschaeffler](https://discuss.aerospike.com/u/fschaeffler)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 7:29am UTC](https://discuss.aerospike.com/t/build-error-within-aerospike-client-c-src-4-6-8/6820/3 "2019-11-27T07:29:13Z")
Sorry for the late response. However, thank you so much for the help @Jan. I’ll give it a try with the Node.js client 3.13.0 and the C client with 4.6.7. ---
**Author:** ![fschaeffler](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/discuss.aerospike.com/fschaeffler/32/1301_2.png) [@fschaeffler](https://discuss.aerospike.com/u/fschaeffler)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 8:31am UTC](https://discuss.aerospike.com/t/build-error-within-aerospike-client-c-src-4-6-8/6820/4 "2019-11-27T08:31:29Z")
Building the Dockerfile even when the version is set to 4.6.7 seems to fail with my setup. Actually the only thing I wanted to achieve was to base my Dockerfile on **node:10-alpine** and not **node:10-slim**. It seems that I did make it altogether too complicated. I had a look at closed issues concerning Alpine on the GitHub repository for the Node.js client. Luckily, you were active there, too 🙂 So what’s working perfectly fine for me is your suggestion here [Docker alpine-10 with aerospike not working · Issue #299 · aerospike/aerospike-client-nodejs · GitHub](https://github.com/aerospike/aerospike-client-nodejs/issues/299#issuecomment-496062384). **Edit:** The only negative point is now the bit bigger size of all image layers for the created image which is now around 678 MB. For the approach with node:10-slim, I’m at 631 MB. This means I’ll stay with the following Dockerfile for my Node.js 10 with Yarn. ```auto FROM node:10-slim RUN apt-get update RUN apt-get install python make g++ openssl libssl-dev libz-dev -y RUN npm install -g yarn WORKDIR /workdir COPY package.json . COPY yarn.lock . COPY tools/preinstall.js tools/preinstall.js RUN yarn install --production=true --pure-lockfile COPY . . EXPOSE 80 HEALTHCHECK CMD curl --fail http://0.0.0.0/ || exit 1 CMD ["yarn", "start"] ``` ---
**Author:** ![Jan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/discuss.aerospike.com/jan/32/1124_2.png) [@Jan](https://discuss.aerospike.com/u/Jan)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 11:22am UTC](https://discuss.aerospike.com/t/build-error-within-aerospike-client-c-src-4-6-8/6820/5 "2019-11-27T11:22:07Z")
> [@fschaeffler](#): > > So what’s working perfectly fine for me is your suggestion here [Docker alpine-10 with aerospike not working · Issue #299 · aerospike/aerospike-client-nodejs · GitHub](https://github.com/aerospike/aerospike-client-nodejs/issues/299#issuecomment-496062384). > > The only negative point is now the bit bigger size of all image layers for the created image which is now around 678 MB. For the approach with node:10-slim, I’m at 631 MB. Note that the Dockerfile I had posted in issue #299 on Github is not optimized for image size. For a real production build, you would probably want to remove both the C client repo as well as the whole C/C++ build toolchain again, once the C client SDK and Node.js client were build successfully. That should drastically reduce the final image size.