postinstall fails with iojs-1.4.1

[hmalphettes]

I encountered the same error than kevinSuttle here: #693 (comment)

iojs-1.4.1 installed via nvm.

➜  tmp  npm i node-sass
|
> node-sass@2.0.1 install /Users/hugues/proj/tmp/node_modules/node-sass
> node scripts/install.js

Can not download file from https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sass/node-sass-binaries/v2.0.1/darwin-x64-iojs-1.4/binding.node

> node-sass@2.0.1 postinstall /Users/hugues/proj/tmp/node_modules/node-sass
> node scripts/build.js

module.js:322
    throw err;
          ^
Error: Cannot find module '/Users/hugues/proj/tmp/node_modules/node-sass/node_modules/pangyp/bin/node-gyp'
    at Function.Module._resolveFilename (module.js:320:15)
    at Function.Module._load (module.js:262:25)
    at Function.Module.runMain (module.js:485:10)
    at startup (node.js:112:16)
    at node.js:863:3
Build failed

On my Macos machine there is no homebrew installation of nodejs or iojs; it is important because homebrew does not install the proper patched npm for iojs and one ends-up having to use pangyp as an alternative to node-gyp when that happens.

The stack trace shows that pangyp, a devDependency, was not installed.
So I moved pangyp to a runtime dependency and got past that problem: #714 (comment)

However the sass binary produced remained incompatible.

I have reverted the use of pangyp (https://github.com/hmalphettes/node-sass/commit/5a113952bf517ebb96f50204431b8f2d8844500d) and put back node-gyp and everything is working like a charm.

[am11]

Thanks for your contribution. I am in the middle of changing this build related stuff in another PR.

There are two issues with this PR:

1 - You are assuming that end user will already have node-gyp globally installed, which might not be the case. This is exactly what we were assuming before I added pangyp as dependency (as io.js appeared at the same time).

2 -

..put back node-gyp and everything is working like a charm.

Yes it seems like it (I am actually surprised, last time I tried building io.js binary, node-gyp just said "no!"). Even though things are looking pretty promising, we should not make any assumption unless this is merged: nodejs/node-gyp#564. Till then, pangyp is the build tool of choice.

[hmalphettes]

@am11 thanks for your attention.

I had not realised that node-gyp could ever be not installed when running npm install. I'll research that.

Yes I can't wait for nodejs/node-gyp#564 and the upstream nodejs/node#493 to be resolved.

Should we close this PR then?

[am11]

Should we close this PR then?

Yes. For now, sticking with pangyp would be make sense until those issues in up streams are sorted out.

We had actually achieved a quite stable build process before io.js days. The aim is to re-achieve that stability. We are also trying to avoid manual building step on end terminals as much as possible (in favour of pre-build binaries).

[am11]

FYI: #717.