GNU bug report logs -
#51838
[PATCH 00/11] guix: node-build-system: Support compiling add-ons with node-gyp.
Previous Next
Reported by: Philip McGrath <philip <at> philipmcgrath.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2021 12:43:01 UTC
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Done: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
Hi,
On 1/6/22 12:45, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
> Hi Philip,
>
> Please pardon the large flood of messages in a short enough of time
> without waiting for a reply. I tried my best to come up with a v8 that
> addresses my personal concerns quickly.
>
> My main changes were to patches 3-5, but note how deleting dependencies
> became significantly easier in 6pp. To list the main differences:
> 1. I've implemented the alist/JSON utilities in terms of SRFI-1 and SRFI- > 2. I shortened the additional JSON API to jsobject-ref and
jsobject-update*.
> I still believe alist->json-object and json-object->alist would be more
> useful (in particular, the main operation of jsobject-union is actually
> alist-flatten), but I digress.
While some of these changes are not to my taste, there's nothing I can't
live with for the sake of getting this patch series applied, finally.
> 3. I made it so that delete-dependencies also acts on peerDependencies.
> That way, we don't have to dance around ordering.
I think this is not quite correct.
(Actually, I suspect more broadly that node-build-system's handling of
peerDependencies is not quite correct, but wrapping my head around the
semantics of peerDependencies is on my to-do list for after these
patches are applied. Here's one thing I want to read and understand:
https://pnpm.io/how-peers-are-resolved)
NPM does not try to install packages in "peerDependencis" during 'npm
install' (out 'configure' phase). The problem arises because because our
'patch-dependencies' phase adds the "peerDependencies" as additional
"dependencies". (Why? I don't fully understand, but I guess because it
wants them to be installed.) We want absent "peerDependencies" to not be
listed in "dependencies", but I don't think we want to delete them from
"peerDependencies": at a minimum, we do not need to, and it seems like
it might cause problems that I don't fully understand.
(This is one of the reasons I preferred to handle absent dependencies in
the 'patch-dependencies' phase.)
> 4. Regexps :)
Hopefully addressed in my previous email :) Jelle makes good arguments
for the no-regexps side. I'm genuinely on the fence, which suggests to
me the best course might be to leave it as a possible future extension
(as we're doing with '#:absent-dependencies').
> PS: If someone else wants to push these in my absence, please adjust the
> signoffs. Also, if those mail headers are broken, don't forget to reset
> Philip as author.
For the patches where you've made substantive changes to the
implementation or the commit message, maybe there should be more of an
annotation than just "Signed-off-by". I'm not super familiar with the
Git etiquette here, but one suggestion I've seen is something like:
Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random <at> developer.example.org>
[lucky <at> maintainer.example.org: struct foo moved from foo.c to foo.h]
Signed-off-by: Lucky K Maintainer <lucky <at> maintainer.example.org>
It's not a big deal, I could just imagine getting confused some months
or years from now about what exactly I wrote or didn't write. (TBH the
numerous versions of this series are already a bit unwieldy.)
Time permitting, I'll send some more comments, but the only things I
think need to be addressed before merging are peerDependencies and regexps.
Thanks for helping to keep things moving!
-Philip
This bug report was last modified 3 years and 195 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.