And on top of that, I could just as easily just start commiting the node_modules dir so that git-clone works properly. Then what argument is there for not using node-gyp?
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Nathan Rajlich <[email protected]>wrote: > 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
