Re: [Nix-dev] npm prepublish hook
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Shea Levy wrote: > Hmm, that first one could be fixed by running the npm install in $out since > we've already set up the deps there. Well there's another issue: that package does not depend on testjs, so using $out won't help in this case unless we forcefully add an extra dependency. In the end, I think this is just the packager's fault, but I'm afraid there will be many more like that, so an in-nix solution is preferrable instead of contacting all packagers and waiting for them to fix stuff. ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] npm prepublish hook
Heh, OK. I will make an issue to track/fix this. On 12/10/2013 09:34 AM, Mathijs Kwik wrote: > I'm not gonna push broken stuff :) > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Shea Levy wrote: >> On 12/10/2013 09:16 AM, Mathijs Kwik wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Shea Levy wrote: maintaining a manual list, as unfortunate as that sounds. Hopefully this will be fixed soon in most packages. For packages that are installed from a tarball (which is most), issues with read-only paths shouldn't come up. If there's a common set of utilities always expected in $PATH we may as well resign ourselves to adding those to buildInputs unconditionally. >>> The 2 cases I found are: >>> bytebuffer-2.1.0: >>> bug in the package itself, wants to run hardcoded path >>> ./node_modules/testjs/bin/testjs >>> but of course this path is not available in the (extracted) tarball. >>> protobufjs: >>> runs tests like "test1 > tests/test1.out", which will fail because >>> tests is not writable, so the issue _does_ come up. >> Hmm, that first one could be fixed by running the npm install in $out since >> we've already set up the deps there. Not sure about the second one, I can't >> seem to find it in nixpkgs? ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] npm prepublish hook
I'm not gonna push broken stuff :) On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Shea Levy wrote: > On 12/10/2013 09:16 AM, Mathijs Kwik wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Shea Levy wrote: >>> >>> maintaining a manual list, as unfortunate as that sounds. Hopefully this >>> will be fixed soon in most packages. >>> >>> For packages that are installed from a tarball (which is most), issues >>> with >>> read-only paths shouldn't come up. If there's a common set of utilities >>> always expected in $PATH we may as well resign ourselves to adding those >>> to >>> buildInputs unconditionally. >> >> The 2 cases I found are: >> bytebuffer-2.1.0: >>bug in the package itself, wants to run hardcoded path >> ./node_modules/testjs/bin/testjs >>but of course this path is not available in the (extracted) tarball. >> protobufjs: >>runs tests like "test1 > tests/test1.out", which will fail because >> tests is not writable, so the issue _does_ come up. > > Hmm, that first one could be fixed by running the npm install in $out since > we've already set up the deps there. Not sure about the second one, I can't > seem to find it in nixpkgs? ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] npm prepublish hook
On 12/10/2013 09:16 AM, Mathijs Kwik wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Shea Levy wrote: >> maintaining a manual list, as unfortunate as that sounds. Hopefully this >> will be fixed soon in most packages. >> >> For packages that are installed from a tarball (which is most), issues with >> read-only paths shouldn't come up. If there's a common set of utilities >> always expected in $PATH we may as well resign ourselves to adding those to >> buildInputs unconditionally. > The 2 cases I found are: > bytebuffer-2.1.0: >bug in the package itself, wants to run hardcoded path > ./node_modules/testjs/bin/testjs >but of course this path is not available in the (extracted) tarball. > protobufjs: >runs tests like "test1 > tests/test1.out", which will fail because > tests is not writable, so the issue _does_ come up. Hmm, that first one could be fixed by running the npm install in $out since we've already set up the deps there. Not sure about the second one, I can't seem to find it in nixpkgs? ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] npm prepublish hook
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Shea Levy wrote: > maintaining a manual list, as unfortunate as that sounds. Hopefully this > will be fixed soon in most packages. > > For packages that are installed from a tarball (which is most), issues with > read-only paths shouldn't come up. If there's a common set of utilities > always expected in $PATH we may as well resign ourselves to adding those to > buildInputs unconditionally. The 2 cases I found are: bytebuffer-2.1.0: bug in the package itself, wants to run hardcoded path ./node_modules/testjs/bin/testjs but of course this path is not available in the (extracted) tarball. protobufjs: runs tests like "test1 > tests/test1.out", which will fail because tests is not writable, so the issue _does_ come up. ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] npm prepublish hook
Hi Mathijs (nix-dev cc'd), Thanks for pointing this out! This does seem very stupid, but isaacs seems committed to the change so we'll have to live with it. Unfortunately some packages will *depend* on the new behavior now, so I think the best case is maintaining a manual list, as unfortunate as that sounds. Hopefully this will be fixed soon in most packages. For packages that are installed from a tarball (which is most), issues with read-only paths shouldn't come up. If there's a common set of utilities always expected in $PATH we may as well resign ourselves to adding those to buildInputs unconditionally. Any idea of a better way to do this? Thanks, Shea On 12/10/2013 08:24 AM, Mathijs Kwik wrote: > Hi Shea, > > I noticed a few npms that started running tests during their installation. > For example "bytebuffer" and "protobufjs". > It turns out npm decided to run prepublish hooks on install now. > https://github.com/isaacs/npm/issues/3059 > There is some discussion about it because it sounds like a stupid idea > (or a stupid hook name), but nixos is bitten by this more than others. > The prepublish hook for many packages runs tests, and tests expect the > source dir to be writable or certain things to be available in the > path. > I would not expect all packages to better themselves in the short term. > > The easiest "fix" is to either remove tests or prepublish from > package.json as an additional patch in patchSource. However, I think > we should not hack packages that just work. And because most packages > get generated, we should keep some "noTests" list externally same as > with nativeDeps. But that all becomes quite messy and fragile imo. > > What do you think? > > Regards, > Mathijs ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
