So Billy your argument is that you don't want to use node-gyp since it has dependencies, and you for some reason are against npm? Well that's a first... What possible argument could you have at this point for not wanting to use npm? It comes with node!!!
Additionally, limiting yourself to just modules that have no dependencies, just for the purpose of being able to git-clone the repo and have it work, seems really disadvantageous to me. *shrug* As for your thought on the separation between a regular node and a dev node, well... this the same thing. "normal" users install just node, while native module devs install node+node-gyp. The levels of separation are the same, but since you're against npm you are hoping for something different. I'm not gonna speak for the core team but I personally don't see 2 different tiers of node ever happening. On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 5:12 PM, billywhizz <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- 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
