Re: devel/yarn - still needed?
On 2024/03/27 19:29, Fabien ROMANO wrote: > I'm new to the node package jungle. Looks like corepack provide more or less > the > same feature as npx but restricted to package managers. I have no idea whats > the > difference for my use case. > > The issue I have with this approach are DISTFILES and the work todo for > something that isn't needed atm (using devel/yarn). DISTFILES is needed anyway, ports are not allowed network access during build and files may only be fetched via DISTFILES/DISTNAME/DIST_TUPLES (and related SUPDISTDILES/PATCHFILES) mechanisms from ftp/http/https URLs.
Re: devel/yarn - still needed?
I'm new to the node package jungle. Looks like corepack provide more or less the same feature as npx but restricted to package managers. I have no idea whats the difference for my use case. The issue I have with this approach are DISTFILES and the work todo for something that isn't needed atm (using devel/yarn). I started on electron+vscode using pre-made tgz for this reason. If I remember correclty it was a pre-made cache so yarn can work offline. As I can't host it in long term, I finally wrote a module for yarn and npm. The yarn module convert the lock in a cache directory for yarn. The npm module convert the lock in node_modules directoy without using npm (that's an other story ...). I did not find any example of corepack / npx call from port itself. FreeBSD have a step to prepare distfiles so they can use corepack to prefetch but I prefer OpenBSD way and I don't want to change the ports system. We can have a yarn module just like cargo (without makefile) but then I need to identify & extract the approriate version (1...4) to bundle it (and I need to figure out how). I have no use case to test yarn>1 neither I tried. From what I read moving from one to the other break something so I think that's easier to follow what the port was built with and avoid fighting this ecosystem. If the need arise (a port which require yarn>1 or maybe pnpm) then we can work on a corepack-like module and perhaps put everything in node module. I like this idea, and you ? Actually there is a lot to say about this ecosystem and I had some hearth attack on my way to make those two modules ... but the results is nice. In conclusion if we remove yarn I will just add the distfile to the module and also a variable for invocation, that's not corepack but that's easy. >From my point of view, keeping it until I replace it doesn't hurt. On 27/03/2024 08:58, Volker Schlecht wrote: > Did you check if corepack yarn is a viable option for you? electron may be an > exception, but the projects I've come across so far don't need a globally > installed yarn command anymore. > > On 2024-03-26 23:36, Fabien ROMANO wrote: >> Please no, I'm working on electron and I need it. >> >> VSCode works for me on amd64 (also stretchly, byar, signal-desktop). >> I don't know a lot about Yarn port itself but we can improve it for sure. >> >> I think that's too early to bring my wip on ports@ but it's a start. >> If some brave souls want to help, I can share, just contact me. >> >> On 26/03/2024 20:10, Volker Schlecht wrote: >>> Picking up on that discussion from September: >>> >>> devel/yarn is >>> >>> - unsupported upstream >>> - unmaintained >>> - unused >>> - outdated >>> >>> ok to remove? >>> >>> On 2023-09-19 21:43, Volker Schlecht wrote: On Tue Sep 19, 2023 at 9:05 PM CEST, Aaron Bieber wrote: > On 9/19/23 13:00, Volker Schlecht wrote: > > Cc: abieber@ > > > > I just came across our port of devel/yarn, which appears to be both very > > old and by now, very underutilized. > > > > The last discussions about yarn that I saw on the list were about WIP > > efforts to port VSCode, to which an ancient devel/yarn doesn't seem to > > be the key either. > > > > Any reason to still keep it around? > > Probably not. The MainReason™ for the port was to give people a working > yarn. Out of the box > it doesn't know the path to `node`. With no regard to my: Is that still a problem since we fixed that with a metaphoric hammer? https://github.com/openbsd/ports/blob/master/lang/node/patches/patch-src_env_cc >>> -- Fabien Romano
Re: devel/yarn - still needed?
Did you check if corepack yarn is a viable option for you? electron may be an exception, but the projects I've come across so far don't need a globally installed yarn command anymore. On 2024-03-26 23:36, Fabien ROMANO wrote: Please no, I'm working on electron and I need it. VSCode works for me on amd64 (also stretchly, byar, signal-desktop). I don't know a lot about Yarn port itself but we can improve it for sure. I think that's too early to bring my wip on ports@ but it's a start. If some brave souls want to help, I can share, just contact me. On 26/03/2024 20:10, Volker Schlecht wrote: Picking up on that discussion from September: devel/yarn is - unsupported upstream - unmaintained - unused - outdated ok to remove? On 2023-09-19 21:43, Volker Schlecht wrote: On Tue Sep 19, 2023 at 9:05 PM CEST, Aaron Bieber wrote: On 9/19/23 13:00, Volker Schlecht wrote: > Cc: abieber@ > > I just came across our port of devel/yarn, which appears to be both very > old and by now, very underutilized. > > The last discussions about yarn that I saw on the list were about WIP > efforts to port VSCode, to which an ancient devel/yarn doesn't seem to > be the key either. > > Any reason to still keep it around? Probably not. The MainReason™ for the port was to give people a working yarn. Out of the box it doesn't know the path to `node`. With no regard to my: Is that still a problem since we fixed that with a metaphoric hammer? https://github.com/openbsd/ports/blob/master/lang/node/patches/patch-src_env_cc
Re: devel/yarn - still needed?
Please no, I'm working on electron and I need it. VSCode works for me on amd64 (also stretchly, byar, signal-desktop). I don't know a lot about Yarn port itself but we can improve it for sure. I think that's too early to bring my wip on ports@ but it's a start. If some brave souls want to help, I can share, just contact me. On 26/03/2024 20:10, Volker Schlecht wrote: > Picking up on that discussion from September: > > devel/yarn is > > - unsupported upstream > - unmaintained > - unused > - outdated > > ok to remove? > > On 2023-09-19 21:43, Volker Schlecht wrote: >> On Tue Sep 19, 2023 at 9:05 PM CEST, Aaron Bieber wrote: >>> On 9/19/23 13:00, Volker Schlecht wrote: >>> > Cc: abieber@ >>> > >>> > I just came across our port of devel/yarn, which appears to be both very >>> > old and by now, very underutilized. >>> > >>> > The last discussions about yarn that I saw on the list were about WIP >>> > efforts to port VSCode, to which an ancient devel/yarn doesn't seem to >>> > be the key either. >>> > >>> > Any reason to still keep it around? >>> >>> Probably not. The MainReason™ for the port was to give people a working >>> yarn. Out of the box >>> it doesn't know the path to `node`. >> >> With no regard to my: Is that still a problem since we fixed that with a >> metaphoric hammer? >> >> https://github.com/openbsd/ports/blob/master/lang/node/patches/patch-src_env_cc >
Re: devel/yarn - still needed?
Picking up on that discussion from September: devel/yarn is - unsupported upstream - unmaintained - unused - outdated ok to remove? On 2023-09-19 21:43, Volker Schlecht wrote: On Tue Sep 19, 2023 at 9:05 PM CEST, Aaron Bieber wrote: On 9/19/23 13:00, Volker Schlecht wrote: > Cc: abieber@ > > I just came across our port of devel/yarn, which appears to be both very > old and by now, very underutilized. > > The last discussions about yarn that I saw on the list were about WIP > efforts to port VSCode, to which an ancient devel/yarn doesn't seem to > be the key either. > > Any reason to still keep it around? Probably not. The MainReason™ for the port was to give people a working yarn. Out of the box it doesn't know the path to `node`. With no regard to my: Is that still a problem since we fixed that with a metaphoric hammer? https://github.com/openbsd/ports/blob/master/lang/node/patches/patch-src_env_cc
Re: devel/yarn - still needed?
With the UI of security/vault now building on OpenBSD without devel/yarn: What about removing devel/yarn? On 2023-09-19 21:00, Volker Schlecht wrote: Cc: abieber@ I just came across our port of devel/yarn, which appears to be both very old and by now, very underutilized. The last discussions about yarn that I saw on the list were about WIP efforts to port VSCode, to which an ancient devel/yarn doesn't seem to be the key either. Any reason to still keep it around?
Re: devel/yarn - still needed?
On Tue Sep 19, 2023 at 9:38 PM CEST, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2023/09/19 13:13, Aaron Bieber wrote: > > On 9/19/23 13:10, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > > On 2023/09/19 21:00, Volker Schlecht wrote: > > > > Cc: abieber@ > > > > > > > > I just came across our port of devel/yarn, which appears to be both very > > > > old and by now, very underutilized. > > Doesn't seem all that old? 2022 and only one version behind the > latest on https://github.com/yarnpkg/yarn/releases/ Without wanting to imply anything: Yarn 1.x has been in maintenance mode since January 2020 and will eventually stop being supported if it hasn't happened already: "This repository holds the sources for Yarn 1.x (latest version at the time of this writing being 1.22). New releases (at this time the 3.2.3, although we're currently working on our next major) are tracked on the yarnpkg/berry repository, this one here being mostly kept for historical purposes and the occasional hotfix we publish to make the migration from 1.x to later releases easier." https://github.com/yarnpkg/yarn
Re: devel/yarn - still needed?
On Tue Sep 19, 2023 at 9:05 PM CEST, Aaron Bieber wrote: > On 9/19/23 13:00, Volker Schlecht wrote: > > Cc: abieber@ > > > > I just came across our port of devel/yarn, which appears to be both very > > old and by now, very underutilized. > > > > The last discussions about yarn that I saw on the list were about WIP > > efforts to port VSCode, to which an ancient devel/yarn doesn't seem to > > be the key either. > > > > Any reason to still keep it around? > > Probably not. The MainReason™ for the port was to give people a working > yarn. Out of the box > it doesn't know the path to `node`. With no regard to my: Is that still a problem since we fixed that with a metaphoric hammer? https://github.com/openbsd/ports/blob/master/lang/node/patches/patch-src_env_cc
Re: devel/yarn - still needed?
On 2023/09/19 13:13, Aaron Bieber wrote:
> On 9/19/23 13:10, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2023/09/19 21:00, Volker Schlecht wrote:
> > > Cc: abieber@
> > >
> > > I just came across our port of devel/yarn, which appears to be both very
> > > old and by now, very underutilized.
Doesn't seem all that old? 2022 and only one version behind the
latest on https://github.com/yarnpkg/yarn/releases/
> > > The last discussions about yarn that I saw on the list were about WIP
> > > efforts to port VSCode, to which an ancient devel/yarn doesn't seem to
> > > be the key either.
> > >
> > > Any reason to still keep it around?
> > >
> > security/vault/Makefile:
> >
> > : # UI prebuilt with: cd ui; yarn install; npm rebuild node-sass; yarn run
> > build
> > : DISTNAME= vault-vendored-${VERSION}
> > : PKGNAME=vault-${VERSION}
> > :
> > : ### Vault UI
> > : MODGO_FLAGS=-tags=ui
> > : MASTER_SITES= https://distfiles.tristero.se/
> >
>
> Wonder if it would make sense to add devel/yarn as a build dep for cases
> like this?
>
I don't think so - it's not used during build, only to prepare updates
(and that would restrict the archs on whih vault can be built; node's
ONLY_FOR_ARCHS is shorter than vault's).
Re: devel/yarn - still needed?
On Tue Sep 19, 2023 at 9:10 PM CEST, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> security/vault/Makefile:
>
> : # UI prebuilt with: cd ui; yarn install; npm rebuild node-sass; yarn run
> build
> : DISTNAME= vault-vendored-${VERSION}
> : PKGNAME=vault-${VERSION}
> :
> : ### Vault UI
> : MODGO_FLAGS=-tags=ui
> : MASTER_SITES= https://distfiles.tristero.se/
Ack, I was only looking for direct dependencies.
Re: devel/yarn - still needed?
On 9/19/23 13:10, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2023/09/19 21:00, Volker Schlecht wrote:
Cc: abieber@
I just came across our port of devel/yarn, which appears to be both very
old and by now, very underutilized.
The last discussions about yarn that I saw on the list were about WIP
efforts to port VSCode, to which an ancient devel/yarn doesn't seem to
be the key either.
Any reason to still keep it around?
security/vault/Makefile:
: # UI prebuilt with: cd ui; yarn install; npm rebuild node-sass; yarn run build
: DISTNAME= vault-vendored-${VERSION}
: PKGNAME=vault-${VERSION}
:
: ### Vault UI
: MODGO_FLAGS=-tags=ui
: MASTER_SITES= https://distfiles.tristero.se/
Wonder if it would make sense to add devel/yarn as a build dep for cases
like this?
Re: devel/yarn - still needed?
On 2023/09/19 21:00, Volker Schlecht wrote:
> Cc: abieber@
>
> I just came across our port of devel/yarn, which appears to be both very
> old and by now, very underutilized.
>
> The last discussions about yarn that I saw on the list were about WIP
> efforts to port VSCode, to which an ancient devel/yarn doesn't seem to
> be the key either.
>
> Any reason to still keep it around?
>
security/vault/Makefile:
: # UI prebuilt with: cd ui; yarn install; npm rebuild node-sass; yarn run build
: DISTNAME= vault-vendored-${VERSION}
: PKGNAME=vault-${VERSION}
:
: ### Vault UI
: MODGO_FLAGS=-tags=ui
: MASTER_SITES= https://distfiles.tristero.se/
Re: devel/yarn - still needed?
On 9/19/23 13:00, Volker Schlecht wrote: Cc: abieber@ I just came across our port of devel/yarn, which appears to be both very old and by now, very underutilized. The last discussions about yarn that I saw on the list were about WIP efforts to port VSCode, to which an ancient devel/yarn doesn't seem to be the key either. Any reason to still keep it around? Probably not. The MainReason™ for the port was to give people a working yarn. Out of the box it doesn't know the path to `node`.
devel/yarn - still needed?
Cc: abieber@ I just came across our port of devel/yarn, which appears to be both very old and by now, very underutilized. The last discussions about yarn that I saw on the list were about WIP efforts to port VSCode, to which an ancient devel/yarn doesn't seem to be the key either. Any reason to still keep it around?
