Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use cases #19

Open
ibc opened this issue Jun 20, 2016 · 10 comments
Open

Use cases #19

ibc opened this issue Jun 20, 2016 · 10 comments

Comments

@ibc
Copy link

ibc commented Jun 20, 2016

Given #9 it seems that this project needs to define its own targets. Here a suggested list:

  1. Be a replacement for Python gyp (currently bundled into node-gyp), so node-gyp would include gyp.js as dependency and Python would not be needed to build Node.js native addons.
  2. Be able to produce ninja projects from Node.js (not just tiled to Node.js native addons), for example bud.
  3. Be able to compile a newer version of Node.js from an older version of Node.js (?)
@ibc ibc mentioned this issue Jun 20, 2016
@indutny
Copy link
Owner

indutny commented Jun 20, 2016

Thank you for bringing it up, @ibc !

The bigger our goals - the longer it will take us to get there. Thus, I think that it may be a good idea to start small with node.js addons and node-gyp, and eventually come to the full support of all GYP features.

This doesn't mean that gyp.js won't be usable in its current form for the most of the projects though.

@RangerMauve
Copy link

Getting rid of the python dependency in node-gyp would make a lot of people happy campers

@ibc
Copy link
Author

ibc commented Jun 20, 2016

Nice. I hope use-case 2 above will be implemented in the future, so I can replace Python gyp with gyp.js in my project :)

@kzc
Copy link

kzc commented Jun 20, 2016

4. Bootstrap and build any version of node without a node binary using Duktape + duktape bindings + C++ compiler.

@saghul
Copy link

saghul commented Jun 22, 2016

The way I see it compiling addons or Node itself are not that different, are they? Then there is the bootstraping issue.

@ibc
Copy link
Author

ibc commented Jun 22, 2016

I wonder whether with gyp.js something like gyp_bud could be replaced by a pure JS API, so there is no even need to launch a child process to run gyp.js.

@indutny
Copy link
Owner

indutny commented Jun 22, 2016

@ibc yeah, this would be great. On other hand, embedding it in gypkg should be good too ;)

@ibc
Copy link
Author

ibc commented Nov 19, 2018

Sorry for coming back to this issue with an off-topic question:

Given that there is no activity in this project and given that GYP does not receive support for Python 3, which is the expectation within the next 2 years? Python 2 will be deprecated in 2020. Why didn't Node move to gyp.js as the proper migration path? What should we expect those who also run projects that depend on GYP and don't want to also depend on Python 2 forever?

@refack
Copy link
Contributor

refack commented Nov 19, 2018

The Node.js project is forking GYP, and the first item in the backlog is python3 support.
We already landed it for node-gyp nodejs/node-gyp#1335

You can follow the progress at https://github.com/refack/GYP which might soon move to the nodejs org.

BTW I do plan on integrating gyp.js into GYP to have it cross-runtime portable.

@ibc
Copy link
Author

ibc commented Nov 19, 2018

Thanks for the update, @refack.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants