i tend to agree with Roman's sentiments. Whatever is used to build addons should be included with the core node package and not be an external module. node-waf worked really nice as far as i was concerned.
also, node-gyp has a ton of dependencies which means if i don't want to use npm (which i really, really don't) then i have to install all these dependencies by hand just to be able to build an addon. that's a giant PITA from where i am standing. On Feb 10, 10:26 pm, Nathan Rajlich <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Roman Shtylman <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think you guys are reinventing the wheel here with respect to building > > addons. Gyp and CMake were create specifically so you don't need to roll > > your own system. Maybe it is just me but I liked the fact that node-waf > > came bundled with the node install. This meant that I didn't have to go > > fetch any additional packages or items to build the addon. > > I don't really see your concern here. We're attempting to do the same thing > with gyp as we did with waf, by providing a light wrapper around its basic > usage to help simplify the necessary gyp file module devs need to create > (same as the wscript file before). The only difference so far is that > instead of being bundled with node, you have to `npm install -g node-gyp` > to get it. As isaacs said at the beginning of this thread, we only want > more advanced/comfortable users compiling, so once new users are ready, > they can install node-gyp. While they're still new, they can rely on > precompiled binaries (same situation with the precompiled binaries > officially offered for node: I don't use them since I'm "advanced", but > they're wonderful for new user adoption). > > > I will also add that I am against shipping binary addons. The number of > > "parameters" you could be pivoting on is too great imho. If someone has a > > system in place to deploy binaries (deb, rpm, etc) I would think they > > should use that. Otherwise compiling these small addons for deployment is > > not that big a deal is it? I would be hesitant on a binary solution until > > someone can prove to me anyone would actually care to use it in a > > meaningful way. Right now, I just always build when I deploy and that works > > fine. The benefit here is that build time failure is much preferred to run > > time failure. > > The way I see it, nobody is forcing you to use any precompiled binaries. > There is always still the source code and installing node-gyp is a one-line > command, so just like node itself, more advanced users are probably going > to stick with compiling their native addons themselves, which is perfectly > fine in my opinion. npm could even offer a flag where it would compile > locally on the 'install' phase instead of downloading a precompiled binary, > much like the node-waf situation now. > > As said in the last paragraph, these precompiled binaries will mostly be > for the benefit of new users (especially Windows users) where they may not > even have a compilation toolchain installed (also especially true for OS X > users who rely on the installer, and don't have XCode installed). But for a > more advanced user like yourself, the only change in your workflow will > probably be invoking node-gyp instead of node-waf at build-time. -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
