From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 02 12:18:14 2021 Received: (at 47282-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Apr 2021 16:18:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:32793 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lSMUv-0005Kc-Tj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2021 12:18:14 -0400 Received: from mail1.fsfe.org ([217.69.89.151]:35030) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lSMUu-0005KT-8u for 47282-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2021 12:18:12 -0400 From: Jelle Licht To: Timothy Sample Subject: Re: bug#47282: [PATCH 00/13] node going forward In-Reply-To: <87k0pprz6n.fsf@ngyro.com> References: <20210320145706.12308-1-jlicht@fsfe.org> <87k0pprz6n.fsf@ngyro.com> Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2021 18:18:08 +0200 Message-ID: <86ft083bjz.fsf@fsfe.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 47282-done Cc: 47282-done@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -6.0 (------) Timothy, Timothy Sample writes: > Hi Jelle, > > Jelle Licht writes: > >> So, some people seem to be interested in this one; please review and tes= t. > > Now that I=E2=80=99ve finally taken the time to dig into what you=E2=80= =99ve done here =E2=80=93 > I must say it=E2=80=99s very impressive! If you bang your head against a wall often enough, it will crack eventually. Head or wall, either way works in this metaphor ;-). > I=E2=80=99ve taken the presumptuous step of re-rolling the series. The r= eason > is that all the =E2=80=9C(delete 'build)=E2=80=9D bits were bothering me.= I decided to > have the build system check the =E2=80=9Cpackage.json=E2=80=9D file for a= build script > before trying to run it. Since that change required changing all the > other patches, I thought it would be easier to just post the updated > patches. Also, I=E2=80=99m hoping to spare you some trouble (since you= =E2=80=99ve > already gone to a lot!). Makes sense, thanks! Please be presumptuous as often as you'd like. > > =E2=80=A2 Change the =E2=80=9CFix incorrect import semantics=E2=80=9D= comments to =E2=80=9CFix > imports for esbuild=E2=80=9D. To me, if TypeScript=E2=80=99s tsc l= ikes the > imports, they are correct TypeScript (despite the esbuild bug > report). "Something a native speaker of English can make sense of" !=3D "Proper English", and in that same vein I don't think a commmon mistake with workaround in place is not a mistake. I really don't care about what ends up in the codebase though, as long as it is clear why we do what we do, which works out just fine with your comment. > The final result is still a little messy, but I don=E2=80=99t think we sh= ould > hold this back any longer. It=E2=80=99s a significant step forward, and = it puts > us in better shape to improve things incrementally. > > WDYT? Let me know if I made anything worse! :) If the altered patches > look good to you, I suggest you go ahead and push them. I still adressed some of Efraim's remarks, and pushed it to master just now. There are quite some ways to go from here: * Get the 'binary' importer upstreamable (I will continue with this) * Properly support cross-compilation of Node and Node-packages I had a super quick look at this, but it seems that in building node, you build intermediate tools that run on the host. Perhaps some our x-compilation gurus can weigh in. * Make a Rome-based build system, once Rome does more than linting, to help untangle the knot that is JavaScript-packaging But for today (and the upcoming release), modern Node on guix \o/ Thanks folks! - Jelle