Skip to content

Re-vendor node/node-gyp --> tools/gyp/ #28555

Description

@cclauss

As discussed at #28537 (comment), in order to keep advancing towards Python 3 compatibility, we should re-vendor the repo node/node-gyp --> this repo's tools/gyp/ directory.

What is the best approach for vendoring in?

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Please describe the problem you are trying to solve.
Node.js does not yet build on Python 3 and Python 2 EOL is in < 6 months.

Describe the solution you'd like
Please describe the desired behavior.
Node.js builds on Python 3.

Describe alternatives you've considered
Please describe alternative solutions or features you have considered.
Going kitesurfing.

Activity

  1. sam-github commented on Jul 5, 2019

    @sam-github
    Contributor

    I'm not involved in gyp maintenance, so no comment on whether we should do this (though python3 support is clearly something we want).

    But in terms of how, look at 3a334b1 as an example, expecially of the commit message, and you can just rm -rf tools/gyp; copy new-gyp to tools/gyp; git add --all tools/gyp; git commit tools/gyp and PR it. I suggest the commit message have the shell commands you used be in it, so its clear its a mechanical task (I assume there will be lots of churn).

    @nodejs/gyp

  2. richardlau commented on Jul 5, 2019

    @richardlau
    Member

    We were (are?) floating patches on top of gyp. I think these have been ported across to node-gyp (nodejs/node-gyp#1518) but it’s something we need to watch out for (e.g. nodejs/node-gyp#1661 had to address one case where the relative directory structure differs between node-gyp and here).

  3. richardlau commented on Jul 5, 2019

    @richardlau
    Member

    As discussed at #28537 (comment), in order to keep advancing towards Python 3 compatibility, we should re-vendor the repo node/node-gyp --> this repo's tools/gyp/ directory.

    node-gyp !== gyp. We’d only want to vendor the gyp part of the node-gyp repository (in the absence of a more official maintained upstream gyp source).

  4. cclauss commented on Aug 13, 2019

    @cclauss
    ContributorAuthor

    This all seems to be done.

    nodejs/node-gyp#1791 would still be a huge leap forward.

  5. added
    pythonPRs and issues that require attention from people who are familiar with Python.
    on Aug 13, 2019
  6. sam-github commented on Aug 14, 2019

    @sam-github
    Contributor

    @cclauss this doesn't seem to be done at all! Isn't the suggestion that we re-vendor "the gyp part of the node-gyp repository"? I don't think that has happened.

    I just opened #28555

  7. sam-github commented on Aug 14, 2019

    @sam-github
    Contributor

    Perhaps we should be vendoring gyp3 in? #26620 would be an attempt at that.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    pythonPRs and issues that require attention from people who are familiar with Python.

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions