Hi Philip,

Philip McGrath <philip@philipmcgrath.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> I've reworked the part of the patch series dealing with node-gyp.

Nice, thanks for working on this! I'll take a look at the patches, sorry
I've not had too much time this week yet :-).

> I'd like to find an NPM addon package to submit as part of this series, too,
> basically as a test case. If I can find one that doesn't raise too many other
> complications, I may send this in as a separate patch, but feel free to try it
> with tree-sitter, too.

Cool, I'll give it a test with the tree-sitter series.

>
> There are a few things I'm still not sure about. I haven't made
> node-build-system add libuv as an implicit input, because I think some
> node-gyp addons don't actually need libuv, but maybe it's common enough that
> it should be done automatically.

I see, I assumed libuv was needed for all addons. I'm thinking given
node itself heavily depends on libuv anymays, it might be nice to add it
by default in the build system, but I don't really mind either way. I'll
check if I can just add libuv in the tree-sitter packages.

>
> Likewise, I haven't tried to change the issue of `node` referring to
> `node-bootstrap`, but I still think it should be changed.

I agree it would be good to change this. I started working on updating
node last weekend but haven't had time to work on it after that. I think
we should probably name node always as "node-<version>":

  node -> node-10
  node-lts -> node-14

Then keep the node and node-lts names as aliases:

  (define-public node node-14)     ;; The latest, but move it to node-16 later
  (define-public node-lts node-14)

However, moving the node variable to node-14 is likely to cause
rebuilds, so we'll have to check that.

Anyways, here's my WIP patch in case there's anything of interest
there. Note that it still has the bug you pointed out where I'm refering
to the host python instead of the target one (thanks for pointing it
out!).

Thanks,
Pierre