I'm -1 for reducing it to a warning. By doing that you're taking the
opposite assumption, that the person who wrote the package doesn't know
what he/she's doing. What if the package uses domains and puts in engines:
">=0.8.0" ? By reducing it to a warning you're letting people's code fail
at runtime instead of at install time.

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Dan Shaw <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm +1 for reducing it to a warning and letting infrastructure
> companies build, adapt and extend it to their needs in userland.
>
> Daniel Shaw
> @dshaw
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Isaac Schlueter <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Thanks for the feedback, everyone.
> >
> > It seems like we can achieve the optimum balance like this:
> >
> > 1. add an "engines-strict" config, default false
> >
> > 3. if "engines-strict" == false, then it's a warning
> >
> > Then Heroku and Azure and the like can set the flag in their envs if
> > they want to (or just look at the engines value and do whatever they
> > want with it), and users will be alerted about the need to upgrade
> > (but without being forced to, or as is more often the case, forced NOT
> > to.)
> >
> > Adding checking for "or higher" would seem to be too subtle a change
> > to me.  Ie, if your package says `"engines":"0.4.x"`, and I have node
> > 0.8, do you *really* mean >=0.6.0?  Or do you mean that you rely on
> > listenFD, which is gone in 0.6, and reimplemented in 0.8, but somewhat
> > differently?
> >
> > It seems like the better option is just to warn you that it might
> > break, and then let it break.
> >
> > Another option might be to let authors add an "enginesStrict" boolean
> > flag in their package.json which would say, "No, seriously, this WILL
> > NOT WORK except with the specified versions, so don't even try to use
> > it."
> >
> > What we're seeing in practice is just weird and broken behavior,
> > usually because an old version of something (say, a package from 2
> > years ago, which doesn't work on modern node) might have no engines
> > specified, but a newer version of the same package (which works fine
> > on 0.8) has "engines":{"node":"0.6.x"} specified.  So, npm tries to
> > find the most recent version that it thinks will work, and it gets
> > 0.1.2 (which is broken and old) instead of 4.8.12 (which is new, and
> > works).  That's the opposite of the intent.  A nag would be more
> > appropriate in that case, I think.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Glenn Block <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >> We were just about to take a dependency on it for Azure. Is there an
> >> alternative recommended approach? I believe Heroku uses this as well.
> >>
> >> Sent from my Windows Phone
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Bradley Meck
> >> Sent: 6/26/2012 10:09 PM
> >> To: [email protected]
> >> Subject: [nodejs] Re: remove "engines" from package.json?
> >>
> >> At least some PaaS use it. I think it it were tied to tests in some way
> it
> >> would be more meaningful for the average user, but for now it most
> commonly
> >> used for PaaS deploys.
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 12:06:52 AM UTC-5, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Do people actually rely on the "engines" hash being respected in npm
> >>> installs any more?  It was super essential in the early days when the
> >>> API was changing constantly, but now, it seems like it just makes it
> >>> unnecessarily difficult to upgrade stuff.
> >>>
> >>> If no one is relying on this right now, I'm going to reduce it to a
> >>> warning.  If in time, people start complaining that the warning is to
> >>> warny, we can remove it, and just let "engines" be a thing of the
> >>> past.  (Note that `npm init` already doesn't bother with it, and for a
> >>> while has just defaulted to {"node":"*"}.)
> >>>
> >>> Please let me know what you think.  Thanks :)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
> >> Posting guidelines:
> >> https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >> Groups "nodejs" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> [email protected]
> >> For more options, visit this group at
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
> >>
> >> --
> >> Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
> >> Posting guidelines:
> >> https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >> Groups "nodejs" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> [email protected]
> >> For more options, visit this group at
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
> >
> > --
> > Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
> > Posting guidelines:
> https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "nodejs" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > [email protected]
> > For more options, visit this group at
> > http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
>
> --
> Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
> Posting guidelines:
> https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "nodejs" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected]
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
>

-- 
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines: 
https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "nodejs" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en

Reply via email to