GNU bug report logs - #51838
[PATCH 00/11] guix: node-build-system: Support compiling add-ons with node-gyp.

Previous Next

Full log

Message #767 received at 51838 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jelle Licht <jlicht <at> fsfe.org>
To: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>, Philip McGrath
 <philip <at> philipmcgrath.com>, 51838 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Timothy Sample <samplet <at> ngyro.com>,
 Pierre Langlois <pierre.langlois <at> gmx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 20/45] guix: node-build-system: Add implicit libuv
 input.
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2021 21:34:49 +0100

Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Am Samstag, dem 18.12.2021 um 11:16 -0500 schrieb Philip McGrath:
>> > 
>> > Do this and #21 have to be separated so far from the rest?  If not,
>> > I'd do build system first, then new packages.  Otherwise fair
>> > enough.
>> 
>> I tried to follow Tim's suggestion in 
>> <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/51838#59> to put the changes related to 
>> #:absent-dependencies before the changes to support native addons, so
>> that the earlier changes could potentially be applied even if there
>> was more discussion needed for the later ones (if #:absent-
>> dependencies were less controversial.
> Fair enough, that does make sense.  However, I do think that "add
> package X" is not too big of a review burden, so I personally think the
> fact we're deleting 'configure everywhere is holding back the change to
> support native addons rather than the other way around.
>
>> But note that the patches before this one aren't adding new packages;
>> they are changing existing packages to use #:absent-dependencies
>> rather than deleting the configure phase. So the series is ordered
>> overall as:
>> 
>>   1. Changes to the `node` package itself
>>   2. Build system changes for #:absent-dependencies
>>      (including the delete-lockfiles phase, because un-deleting the
>>      configure phase exposes those problems)
>>   3. Packages changes to use #:absent-dependencies
>>   4. Build system changes to support native addons
>>   5. New packages to exercise the support for native addons
> There is an unspoken bit here in #5 in that those packages still need
> to get rid of unwanted dependencies, which makes this set still
> unsplittable in a sense.
>
> If everyone else here agrees, I think we could at least upstream the
> changes to node itself while we still discuss 2-5.  Timothy, Pierre,
> Jelle, WDYT?

Agreed, thanks for asking.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.