I'm a fan of shipping dependencies shrink wrapped but as mentioned this is not generally done at Apache. (Except for when it is like Maven.)
I wonder if there's a bootstrap way we could look at? One less install step, and assurance of a sane (or at least expected) runtime is nice. On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > Plugman and cordova-cli both require a minimum 0.9.9 node. > > See the "engines" and "engineStrict" flags in package.json for the two > repos. engineStrict when set to true will force npm to make sure the > user's version of node adheres to what is listed under the "engines" prop. > > On 6/19/13 1:15 PM, "Gord Tanner" <gtan...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Still a -1, cordova (and all it's projects) should use the globally >>installed version of node. >> >>If someone needs multiple versions of node the should probably use nvm [1] >>to manage it. IMHO this is a user problem and not something we should >>magically solve via bundled copies of node or hardcoded paths to specific >>versions of node. >> >>I agree we should have a version of node we support, it just needs to be >>consistent and common across all of our tools and require the user to have >>that version range in their path. >> >>[1] - https://github.com/creationix/nvm >> >> >>On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Bryan Higgins >><br...@bryanhiggins.net>wrote: >> >>> For 3.0 will there still be a ZIP file released by Apache? Will the >>> instructions be download the latest version of node then run "npm >>>install >>> -g <path to cordova-cli>"? >>> >>> My assumption was the individual project templates will continue to work >>> independently of CLI. >>> >>> Also, keep in mind that CLI invokes BB via shell scripts which in turn >>>call >>> node. So for environments where people need different versions of node >>> installed, invoking CLI with an alternate node version will cause BB to >>>be >>> invoked via the globally installed version. Perhaps that is an edge >>>case, >>> but it's still something that needs to be supported by allowing them to >>> configure node path for BB. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Gord Tanner <gtan...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > I would expect they would have a supported node version when they >>>type: >>> > >>> > "npm install cordova" >>> > >>> > which would do any version checks in the package.json [1] for >>>supported >>> > node versions >>> > >>> > [1] - >>> > >>> > >>> >>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cordova-cli.git;a=blob_plain;f= >>>package.json;hb=HEAD >>> > >>> > >>> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Bryan Higgins <br...@bryanhiggins.net >>> > >wrote: >>> > >>> > > So for Cordova 3.0 in general, users will be required to >>>pre-install a >>> > > minimum version of node globally? >>> > > >>> > > We have had issues where upgrading node breaks stuff. I'd like to >>>avoid >>> > > that and give users flexibility with their own system configuration. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Gord Tanner <gtan...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > -1 >>> > > > >>> > > > I would rather we just use the system version of node which would >>>be >>> > the >>> > > > same version as the CLI. I can't think of any reason a specific >>> > platform >>> > > > (aka BlackBerry) would need a special version of a common >>>dependency. >>> > > > >>> > > > Also I don't think you can bundle binaries in an apache release. >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Bryan Higgins < >>> > bhigg...@blackberry.com >>> > > > >wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > > I'd like to reopen the topic of bundling node js into the >>> blackberry >>> > > > > platform. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > I have personally gotten feedback from users of errors which >>>were >>> > > caused >>> > > > by >>> > > > > node version inconsistencies. We have since updated the >>>check_req >>> > > script >>> > > > to >>> > > > > test for the minimum version of node we require, but that is >>>not an >>> > > ideal >>> > > > > solution since users may need a different node version installed >>> > > globally >>> > > > > for other software. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > At a minimum, I'd like to give users the option to point to an >>> > > alternate >>> > > > > version of node. I have logged a JIRA issue for that. [1] >>> > > > > >>> > > > > What I'd prefer to do, is bundle the node binaries into the >>> > > distribution. >>> > > > > That would completely eliminate the dependency. Users would only >>> need >>> > > to >>> > > > > worry about setting up the native SDK. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > We already do this in the WebWorks SDK [2] >>> > > > > >>> > > > > I'm interested how the community feels about this. Are there any >>> > > > licensing >>> > > > > concerns in Apache hosting binaries without source? >>> > > > > >>> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3798 >>> > > > > [2] >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >>>https://github.com/blackberry/BB10-Webworks-Packager/tree/master/third_pa >>>rty/node >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >
