-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30k
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
update npm to 5.8.0 #19840
update npm to 5.8.0 #19840
Conversation
Also, it would be possible to move the |
Currently npm explicitly doesn't support 10.x and will fail on master. This patch manually adds support for 10.x so that we can keep an up to date version of npm on master. refs: nodejs#17535 PR-URL: nodejs#17777 Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <gibfahn@gmail.com>
/cc @nodejs/build and @nodejs/tsc as this change has gotten a bit bigger in scope |
Wait... 5.8 removed node-gyp in a minor release? Ugh. |
@jasnell No, the files just moved around in-tree |
Phew... ok good.... :-) gave me a slight mini heart attack there. |
so wait, was it removed or moved? did @MylesBorins add it to node_modules or .. what is going on? is there a reference for what this is all about? |
This PR is adding a second copy. I think we could just hoist |
Ahhh I don't know why I thought it had been removed instead of just moved.
I'll update the PR
I prefer to not change the location in the tree
…On Thu, Apr 5, 2018, 7:49 PM Anna Henningsen ***@***.***> wrote:
$ grep version tools/node_modules/node-gyp/package.json
"version": "3.6.2"
$ grep version deps/npm/node_modules/npm-lifecycle/node_modules/node-gyp/package.json
"version": "3.6.2"
This PR is adding a second copy.
I think we could just hoist node-gyp back to its old location in the npm
tree manually
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#19840 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAecVzKY-tJXNzMAqFpRho6zZ6lDEx_yks5tlq13gaJpZM4TJQlN>
.
|
node-gyp has been moved in the tree of npm. This update fixes references to the location in the Makefile
rolled back the CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/14084/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
vcbuild.bat
will also need to be updated with the new node-gyp
location.
The AIX failure is real. Cc @nodejs/platform-aix |
I've seen a lot of code (and maybe I've written some ...) that makes this assumption, moving it could cause some yelping. +1 to hoisting it although we should probably have this discussion with npm folks. |
I just observed Atom text editor failing to install or update any plugins because of this with system-wide npm@5.8.0 install. https://github.com/npm/npm/blob/master/bin/node-gyp-bin/node-gyp — npm itself fails on 5.8.0 when executing this file. Related: npm/npm#20163, mapbox/node-pre-gyp#362 |
As pointed out: we didn't remove |
@zkat I think the issue is that node-gyp itself has code internally expecting to live at that location... And there is a non trivial amount of code in the ecosystem making similar assumption |
If this works, it should be pretty easy to backport as well. |
@zkat 🎉 |
Yes, npm/npm#20276 looks like an ideal solution (especially the tests part). Thanks, @zkat! |
Should this stay open due to #20190? |
We are likely going to need to update the 5.x release line before 6.x lands
At the very least this can re target 8.x
…On Sun, Apr 22, 2018, 1:59 PM Ruben Bridgewater ***@***.***> wrote:
Should this stay open due to #20190
<#20190>?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#19840 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAecV5QHmnZW126g4nqlF6Fe4QnCZX3rks5trMT4gaJpZM4TJQlN>
.
|
@MylesBorins does this mean there is a chance that npm 5.8.x get's released (packaged) with a node 8.x.x version? |
Ping @MylesBorins about retargeting this PR |
@BridgeAR I'm going to go ahead and close this for now. We would need a different 5.x version to fix the node-gyp issue. If 6.x lands on master in a timely fashion we can backport in an 8.x minor, which is coming in the next month |
Another attempt after #19560 broke master. Because npm removed node-gyp we now need to vendor it. I've added it to
tools/node_modules
similar to our other vendored dependencies. I've also gone ahead and make a script to update the dep, update the license builder, update the license, and update the Makefile.I'm going to run CITGM on this... I'm curious if this will have any effect on native modules at all.
/cc @iarna why did y'all remove node-gyp, and are there any edge cases we should expect?