From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Dec 02 16:18:13 2021 Received: (at 51838) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Dec 2021 21:18:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49459 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mstT3-00047U-5H for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 02 Dec 2021 16:18:13 -0500 Received: from mail-qv1-f51.google.com ([209.85.219.51]:41925) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mstSy-000479-5u for 51838@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 02 Dec 2021 16:18:11 -0500 Received: by mail-qv1-f51.google.com with SMTP id m17so799582qvx.8 for <51838@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 02 Dec 2021 13:18:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=philipmcgrath.com; s=google; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :cc:references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZCvym2FkD/kbTY+dCBJ8PFsE5pcXkg050AwuiraxPu4=; b=LqEDwf6HRwQVysjAd7saRPKhoOtYCKjcGCziIVnpqIt2VjxIAylyLWtvyvP+wH/5D9 mDH8138LU/cVH9McPiGUM8SZrkBIJfBZdqC0haOQyBYNHyWPXTgCgO/rXr0uArrskDoX PHWPLcdubt7fqus7mmhweHGQLeV/SVAc5YApaGXgWCHBjxhBQPwG8MjsRvdZRJfwDne1 2IXRT4ZTQTcjbWsErsSU797tfufmYXnWHXQ6VikRXIWUZDz4K7020WHqJERNqt9mXbbP /48as3U2DzXyiZneU+QIO1/ctDxBycPWTZeio19KHGbziDJK2dIWJpXTIeGT/Sdn2UCC qoYg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZCvym2FkD/kbTY+dCBJ8PFsE5pcXkg050AwuiraxPu4=; b=zE7ozGbDjP8tGow8MWT1LZ0s/qTS0D52unMkQilOyOAjSDPxxkFOaTbArhpQFykbS2 qtrll2+xC7xpmNr6xuGpqiSP9Ioouks1/3OW5idLjM/y7+6MicKRj82k4W+3c8cxJsxd Rb+zIEyXgIrFm47LBy8kkoA1t6diVijOBJMKtrOkhZg8H2jYzHP3y5fQPPdDnYoZqA95 50df6XZ4NQrxb/TwQsPc4wEuaS8+srYZ9K7RQ3zCiQh2S0KNjE6kGJpRmYpSh75vONFc 466k30Nk9wBzvqAuAxEBADPg+uaOzNEhpwF+/IIDycjCCYAjHQIJKufJA8Wg4i+l8qBY wwBg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5317p7RouWHvLAJtiPYarW0yOG1VZGsvp4Sb5dCvYKTqr+aguylc DI3Mp5Hh6CHn20oeX1zVUn7lgA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw3hCLnBzjB05zT9LARhSuTQlLH/3742/Dds7KoJ3Wsv7On5rG7KrCNc5IXerqo06lkIxixUg== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:f8cc:: with SMTP id h12mr15856634qvo.122.1638479882615; Thu, 02 Dec 2021 13:18:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.45.36] (c-73-125-89-242.hsd1.fl.comcast.net. [73.125.89.242]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g19sm762345qtg.82.2021.12.02.13.18.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 02 Dec 2021 13:18:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 16:18:01 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.1 Subject: Re: bug#51838: [PATCH 00/11] guix: node-build-system: Support compiling add-ons with node-gyp. Content-Language: en-US To: Timothy Sample , Jelle Licht References: <5a04aa92-e80d-e11b-235c-b7f5e3a92d00@philipmcgrath.com> <20211120043406.952350-1-philip@philipmcgrath.com> <20211120043406.952350-10-philip@philipmcgrath.com> <86tug39lps.fsf@fsfe.org> <87pmqkm5u1.fsf_-_@ngyro.com> From: Philip McGrath In-Reply-To: <87pmqkm5u1.fsf_-_@ngyro.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.6 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 51838 Cc: 51838@debbugs.gnu.org, 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: -0.4 (/) On 11/28/21 14:35, Timothy Sample wrote: > Jelle Licht writes: >> From what I have seen package-lock.json offers us no benefits (because >> we track exact dependency information via the guix store) and can (as >> you have seen) prevent builds from working. My 2c: always remove it in a >> phase in the build system. > > I’m inclined to agree with Jelle and Liliana. I can’t imagine a > situation in which we would want the lock files. We could be wrong, but > we can always adjust the build system later if something surprising > happens (e.g., ‘#:keep-lock-file?’ or whatever). This makes sense to me. Should we also delete "yarn.lock" (respected as of npm v7)[1] and "npm-shrinkwrap.json"[2]? It seems like the same reasons probably apply. We might want to handle "node_modules/.package-lock.json"[3], too, but that seems less likely to exist. -Philip [1]: https://blog.npmjs.org/post/621733939456933888/npm-v7-series-why-keep-package-lockjson.html [2]: https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/v8/configuring-npm/package-lock-json#package-lockjson-vs-npm-shrinkwrapjson [3]: https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/v8/configuring-npm/package-lock-json#package-lockjson-vs-npm-shrinkwrapjson