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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #785 received at 51838 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Timothy Sample <samplet <at> ngyro.com>
To: Philip McGrath <philip <at> philipmcgrath.com>
Cc: 51838 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Pierre Langlois <pierre.langlois <at> gmx.com>,
 Jelle Licht <jlicht <at> fsfe.org>,
 Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/45] guix: node-build-system: Add
 #:absent-dependencies argument.
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 15:15:48 -0500

Hi Philip,

Philip McGrath <philip <at> philipmcgrath.com> writes:

> If we took your final suggestion above, I think we'd have something
> like this:
>
> ```
> #:phases
> (modify-phases %standard-phases
>   (add-after 'unpack 'delete-dependencies
>     (make-delete-dependencies-phase '("node-tap"))))
> ```

I’m perfectly happy with this if it’s a compromise we all can agree on.
It is exactly what popped into my imagination when I read Liliana’s
suggestion.  I guess the one thing missing is that it would not
necessarily be implemented on top of better “package.json” manipulation
support.  That said, it doesn’t preclude providing that support if/when
the need arises.

> I don't know what further steps to take to resolve this disagreement
> or how some decision ultimately gets made.
>
> Maybe someone else could weigh in on how to proceed?

I’m probably not “someone else” enough at this point, but I guess we can
ask the maintainers to weigh in/help facilitate.  We try to move forward
by consensus, and maybe replacing the keyword with a phase-making
procedure will get us there.  Liliana, what do you say?  Have we found
an approach we can agree on?  If not, I think that we’re probably stuck
and will need some fresh voices to move forward.


-- Tim

Previous Next

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