From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Nov 28 14:59:42 2021 Received: (at 51838) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Nov 2021 19:59:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36395 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mrQKs-0002eW-9C for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 28 Nov 2021 14:59:42 -0500 Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:51773) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mrQKq-0002eG-6R for 51838@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 28 Nov 2021 14:59:40 -0500 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C00A25C00AE; Sun, 28 Nov 2021 14:59:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 28 Nov 2021 14:59:34 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=0DIN/f9osEv9HSArYNlyI1uIeawvVxWOh0faRvpiG fU=; b=YQ+sh7adHCjtsfJDlp0H/IdN8anpPXzlYsxotGlRWZwhlfbiyF4homIIp A+/SHYbyaUs5lABr69KxCI4ihjbsxgIKYzR8r+HLnKpQuRFVVUb4O1nBrUN5szcK q2L2P+1mIaeMIy7PfZrQVYcxbYFkgdqaU3a5/jIgG/JRuZHmygwjp1ik6MiXcKVM AEYSwsz9hE/LXr7Za6+BESRpmQ3qf/LkOoFXydju3qECIsb8E9zt0euvDbbwZxmV CL3+7sBpfBGE8XJOKMiME6KU6uBvGtSIWc//YG1Sxv6yfPIdWcFS927BPycdxJQo fHrT09zLA/ljJwzZ3U0Bx0VWJs1VQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvuddrheeigddufeefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufhfffgjkfgfgggtgfesthhqredttderjeenucfhrhhomhepvfhimhho thhhhicuufgrmhhplhgvuceoshgrmhhplhgvthesnhhghihrohdrtghomheqnecuggftrf grthhtvghrnhepvdelvefhheegudevjedvfedtveeileffveehveejgefgteetteejteel tdefueevnecuffhomhgrihhnpehgnhhurdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd enucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepshgrmhhplhgvthesnhhghihrohdrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 28 Nov 2021 14:59:34 -0500 (EST) From: Timothy Sample To: Pierre Langlois Subject: Re: bug#51838: [PATCH 00/11] guix: node-build-system: Support compiling add-ons with node-gyp. References: <20211114125830.45427-1-philip@philipmcgrath.com> <20211114130409.49241-1-philip@philipmcgrath.com> <20211114130409.49241-2-philip@philipmcgrath.com> <48018e12484d19466d9c6f253a8d7ebeae93e947.camel@gmail.com> <5a04aa92-e80d-e11b-235c-b7f5e3a92d00@philipmcgrath.com> <87tug6bnen.fsf@ngyro.com> <87czmqk29d.fsf@gmx.com> Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 14:59:33 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87czmqk29d.fsf@gmx.com> (Pierre Langlois's message of "Tue, 23 Nov 2021 20:54:26 +0000") Message-ID: <87ilwcm4pm.fsf_-_@ngyro.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 51838 Cc: 51838@debbugs.gnu.org, Philip McGrath , Liliana Marie Prikler 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: -1.7 (-) Hello, Pierre Langlois writes: > Hi Timothy, > > Timothy Sample writes: > >> More importantly, is the general plan that we merge these changes, >> and then Pierre rebases their Tree-sitter changes on top these? >> >> Pierre, maybe you could weigh in here? > > The overall approach looks good to me, it's better than what I > originally proposed for sure :-). That being said, I'm not very > familiar with the Node.js ecosystem so I don't know if it's necessarily > the right way, but I suspect the correct way for node isn't very Guix-y > so I'm not too worried about that. The whole Node.js bundles NPM, which bundles node-gyp, which bundles a fork of GYP [1] is not very Guix-y at all, no. :/ This is one of those problems (like bootstrapping GCC) that will take years of incremental improvements and side projects and all that. [1] Not to get too off topic, but isn=E2=80=99t =E2=80=9Cgyp=E2=80=9D a slu= r? How did Google ever call something that? > It's on my TODO list to take another look at the patches as well :-), > then yes, I'm planning on rebasing my tree-sitter series on top. Excellent! >> Sorry if I missed something. I assume everything is OK, but I want to >> be sure before I start digging into the details of the patches =E2=80=93 >> especially those first few more complicated ones. :) > > Thanks for taking a look! I have an idea to simplify the patch series a bit: if we can answer my question here and come to a conclusion about deleting lock files , I could merge the =E2=80=98#:absent-dependencies=E2=80=99 part of the patch series. I think = this might make future re-rolls easier and help rein in the scope a bit. Thoughts? Philip? Thanks! -- Tim