as an alternative to having gyp as an npm module, how about having a
node-sdk build of core with everything included to allow building of c+
+ modules and no need to install/use npm or any other external
modules? this is the way .Net and Java do things and it seems to
work...

On Feb 11, 12:54 am, billywhizz <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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

Reply via email to