[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#47282: [PATCH 00/13] node going forward

From: Jelle Licht
Subject: bug#47282: [PATCH 00/13] node going forward
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2021 18:18:08 +0200


Timothy Sample <> writes:

> Hi Jelle,
> Jelle Licht <> writes:
>> So, some people seem to be interested in this one; please review and test.
> Now that I’ve finally taken the time to dig into what you’ve done here –
> I must say it’s 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’ve taken the presumptuous step of re-rolling the series.  The reason
> is that all the “(delete 'build)” bits were bothering me.  I decided to
> have the build system check the “package.json” 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’m hoping to spare you some trouble (since you’ve
> already gone to a lot!).

Makes sense, thanks! Please be presumptuous as often as you'd like.

>     • Change the “Fix incorrect import semantics” comments to “Fix
>       imports for esbuild”.  To me, if TypeScript’s tsc likes the
>       imports, they are correct TypeScript (despite the esbuild bug
>       report).

"Something a native speaker of English can make sense of" != "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

> The final result is still a little messy, but I don’t think we should
> hold this back any longer.  It’s 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

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

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]