gyp,build: consistent shared library location - #35626

Closed
rvagg wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:masterfrom
rvagg:rvagg/gyp-lib.target
Closed

gyp,build: consistent shared library location#35626
rvagg wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:masterfrom
rvagg:rvagg/gyp-lib.target

Conversation

@rvagg

@rvaggrvagg commented Oct 13, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Ref: nodejs/node-gyp#2233
Ref: nodejs/gyp-next#69

Pending agreement on nodejs/gyp-next#69. Perhaps this could be argued to be a breaking change here? But I'm making the case that it's a bugfix for GYP as far as node-gyp and npm is concerned. Doing this here makes it consistent across all (and matches the behaviour node-gyp has had for many years now). This really should go out with npm 7 and node 15, but I have no idea on timing on either of those things.

@nodejs/build
@nodejs/gyp
@nodejs/node-gyp

@rvagg
rvagg requested review from ryzokuken and targosOctober 13, 2020 08:14
@nodejs-github-botnodejs-github-bot added build Issues and PRs related to Node.js builds or CI infrastructure. tools Issues and PRs related to the tools directory. labels Oct 13, 2020
@rvagg

rvagg commented Oct 13, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

I should clarify - I've included changes to tools/gyp that are taking the place of code I would hope to be vendored in if/when the upstream patch is accepted

@nodejs-github-bot

nodejs-github-bot commented Oct 13, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/33565/

@TrottTrott added the python PRs and issues that require attention from people who are familiar with Python. label Oct 13, 2020
@nodejs-github-bot

nodejs-github-bot commented Oct 13, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/33571/

ryzokuken
ryzokuken approved these changes Oct 13, 2020
View reviewed changes

@ryzokukenryzokuken left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall I'm +1 on this change, because it's more consistent and it's better to change Node than break the ecosystem. That said, this PR should not land as it is, since we need to merge the gyp PR, cut a release and upgrade instead of directly changing the files.

@MylesBorins

MylesBorins commented Oct 13, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@ryzokuken@rvagg what is the timeline on the node-gyp update? We should get this updated in npm ASAP too, otherwise for most ecosystem use cases the preferred behavior is not going to happen

@ryzokuken

ryzokuken commented Oct 13, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@MylesBorins we're cutting a gyp-next release tonight and I could make PRs updating the dependency both here and in node-gyp as soon as that's done.

@rvagg

rvagg commented Oct 14, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

@MylesBorins re timeline, I'll get node-gyp out asap but we have consistent windows failures now on nodejs/node-gyp#2236 so we'll have to wait to figure those out.

@rvaggrvagg mentioned this pull request Oct 14, 2020
Closed
4 tasks
@rvagg

rvagg commented Oct 14, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

have pulled this commit in to #35635

@rvaggrvagg closed this Oct 14, 2020
@rvagg
rvagg deleted the rvagg/gyp-lib.target branch October 14, 2020 04:09
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@targostargosAwaiting requested review from targos
1 more reviewer
@ryzokukenryzokukenryzokuken approved these changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

buildIssues and PRs related to Node.js builds or CI infrastructure.pythonPRs and issues that require attention from people who are familiar with Python.toolsIssues and PRs related to the tools directory.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@rvagg@nodejs-github-bot@MylesBorins@ryzokuken@Trott
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all 
 blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '

Skip to content
gyp,build: consistent shared library location - #35626
Closed
rvagg wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:masterfrom 
rvagg:rvagg/gyp-lib.target
Closed
gyp,build: consistent shared library location#35626
rvagg wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:masterfrom 
rvagg:rvagg/gyp-lib.target
Conversation
@rvagg
@rvaggrvagg
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Ref: nodejs/node-gyp#2233

Ref: nodejs/gyp-next#69
Pending agreement on nodejs/gyp-next#69. Perhaps this could be argued to be a breaking change here? But I'm making the case that it's a bugfix for GYP as far as node-gyp and npm is concerned. Doing this here makes it consistent across all (and matches the behaviour node-gyp has had for many years now). This really should go out with npm 7 and node 15, but I have no idea on timing on either of those things.
@nodejs/build

@nodejs/gyp

@nodejs/node-gyp
@rvagg
rvagg
requested review from
ryzokuken and targosOctober 13, 2020 08:14
@nodejs-github-botnodejs-github-bot
added

build
Issues and PRs related to Node.js builds or CI infrastructure.
tools
Issues and PRs related to the tools directory.
labels
Oct 13, 2020
@rvagg
rvagg
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
I should clarify - I've included changes to tools/gyp that are taking the place of code I would hope to be vendored in if/when the upstream patch is accepted
@nodejs-github-bot
nodejs-github-bot
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/33565/
@TrottTrott
added
the 
python
PRs and issues that require attention from people who are familiar with Python.
label
Oct 13, 2020
@nodejs-github-bot
nodejs-github-bot
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/33571/
ryzokuken
ryzokuken
approved these changes
Oct 13, 2020
View reviewed changes
@ryzokukenryzokuken
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall I'm +1 on this change, because it's more consistent and it's better to change Node than break the ecosystem. That said, this PR should not land as it is, since we need to merge the gyp PR, cut a release and upgrade instead of directly changing the files.
@MylesBorins
MylesBorins
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@ryzokuken@rvagg what is the timeline on the node-gyp update? We should get this updated in npm ASAP too, otherwise for most ecosystem use cases the preferred behavior is not going to happen
@ryzokuken
ryzokuken
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@MylesBorins we're cutting a gyp-next release tonight and I could make PRs updating the dependency both here and in node-gyp as soon as that's done.
@rvagg
rvagg
commented
Oct 14, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
@MylesBorins re timeline, I'll get node-gyp out asap but we have consistent windows failures now on nodejs/node-gyp#2236 so we'll have to wait to figure those out.
@rvaggrvagg
mentioned this pull request
Oct 14, 2020
 Closed

4 tasks
@rvagg
rvagg
commented
Oct 14, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
have pulled this commit in to #35635
@rvaggrvagg
closed this
Oct 14, 2020
@rvagg
rvagg
deleted the

rvagg/gyp-lib.target

branch
October 14, 2020 04:09
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@targostargosAwaiting requested review from targos

1 more reviewer

@ryzokukenryzokukenryzokuken approved these changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

buildIssues and PRs related to Node.js builds or CI infrastructure.pythonPRs and issues that require attention from people who are familiar with Python.toolsIssues and PRs related to the tools directory.

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@rvagg@nodejs-github-bot@MylesBorins@ryzokuken@Trott

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
gyp,build: consistent shared library location - #35626
Closed
rvagg wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:masterfrom 
rvagg:rvagg/gyp-lib.target
Closed
gyp,build: consistent shared library location#35626
rvagg wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:masterfrom 
rvagg:rvagg/gyp-lib.target
Conversation
@rvagg
@rvaggrvagg
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Ref: nodejs/node-gyp#2233

Ref: nodejs/gyp-next#69
Pending agreement on nodejs/gyp-next#69. Perhaps this could be argued to be a breaking change here? But I'm making the case that it's a bugfix for GYP as far as node-gyp and npm is concerned. Doing this here makes it consistent across all (and matches the behaviour node-gyp has had for many years now). This really should go out with npm 7 and node 15, but I have no idea on timing on either of those things.
@nodejs/build

@nodejs/gyp

@nodejs/node-gyp
@rvagg
rvagg
requested review from
ryzokuken and targosOctober 13, 2020 08:14
@nodejs-github-botnodejs-github-bot
added

build
Issues and PRs related to Node.js builds or CI infrastructure.
tools
Issues and PRs related to the tools directory.
labels
Oct 13, 2020
@rvagg
rvagg
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
I should clarify - I've included changes to tools/gyp that are taking the place of code I would hope to be vendored in if/when the upstream patch is accepted
@nodejs-github-bot
nodejs-github-bot
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/33565/
@TrottTrott
added
the 
python
PRs and issues that require attention from people who are familiar with Python.
label
Oct 13, 2020
@nodejs-github-bot
nodejs-github-bot
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/33571/
ryzokuken
ryzokuken
approved these changes
Oct 13, 2020
View reviewed changes
@ryzokukenryzokuken
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall I'm +1 on this change, because it's more consistent and it's better to change Node than break the ecosystem. That said, this PR should not land as it is, since we need to merge the gyp PR, cut a release and upgrade instead of directly changing the files.
@MylesBorins
MylesBorins
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@ryzokuken@rvagg what is the timeline on the node-gyp update? We should get this updated in npm ASAP too, otherwise for most ecosystem use cases the preferred behavior is not going to happen
@ryzokuken
ryzokuken
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@MylesBorins we're cutting a gyp-next release tonight and I could make PRs updating the dependency both here and in node-gyp as soon as that's done.
@rvagg
rvagg
commented
Oct 14, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
@MylesBorins re timeline, I'll get node-gyp out asap but we have consistent windows failures now on nodejs/node-gyp#2236 so we'll have to wait to figure those out.
@rvaggrvagg
mentioned this pull request
Oct 14, 2020
 Closed

4 tasks
@rvagg
rvagg
commented
Oct 14, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
have pulled this commit in to #35635
@rvaggrvagg
closed this
Oct 14, 2020
@rvagg
rvagg
deleted the

rvagg/gyp-lib.target

branch
October 14, 2020 04:09
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@targostargosAwaiting requested review from targos

1 more reviewer

@ryzokukenryzokukenryzokuken approved these changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

buildIssues and PRs related to Node.js builds or CI infrastructure.pythonPRs and issues that require attention from people who are familiar with Python.toolsIssues and PRs related to the tools directory.

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@rvagg@nodejs-github-bot@MylesBorins@ryzokuken@Trott

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
gyp,build: consistent shared library location - #35626
Closed
rvagg wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:masterfrom 
rvagg:rvagg/gyp-lib.target
Closed
gyp,build: consistent shared library location#35626
rvagg wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:masterfrom 
rvagg:rvagg/gyp-lib.target
Conversation
@rvagg
@rvaggrvagg
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Ref: nodejs/node-gyp#2233

Ref: nodejs/gyp-next#69
Pending agreement on nodejs/gyp-next#69. Perhaps this could be argued to be a breaking change here? But I'm making the case that it's a bugfix for GYP as far as node-gyp and npm is concerned. Doing this here makes it consistent across all (and matches the behaviour node-gyp has had for many years now). This really should go out with npm 7 and node 15, but I have no idea on timing on either of those things.
@nodejs/build

@nodejs/gyp

@nodejs/node-gyp
@rvagg
rvagg
requested review from
ryzokuken and targosOctober 13, 2020 08:14
@nodejs-github-botnodejs-github-bot
added

build
Issues and PRs related to Node.js builds or CI infrastructure.
tools
Issues and PRs related to the tools directory.
labels
Oct 13, 2020
@rvagg
rvagg
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
I should clarify - I've included changes to tools/gyp that are taking the place of code I would hope to be vendored in if/when the upstream patch is accepted
@nodejs-github-bot
nodejs-github-bot
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/33565/
@TrottTrott
added
the 
python
PRs and issues that require attention from people who are familiar with Python.
label
Oct 13, 2020
@nodejs-github-bot
nodejs-github-bot
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/33571/
ryzokuken
ryzokuken
approved these changes
Oct 13, 2020
View reviewed changes
@ryzokukenryzokuken
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall I'm +1 on this change, because it's more consistent and it's better to change Node than break the ecosystem. That said, this PR should not land as it is, since we need to merge the gyp PR, cut a release and upgrade instead of directly changing the files.
@MylesBorins
MylesBorins
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@ryzokuken@rvagg what is the timeline on the node-gyp update? We should get this updated in npm ASAP too, otherwise for most ecosystem use cases the preferred behavior is not going to happen
@ryzokuken
ryzokuken
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@MylesBorins we're cutting a gyp-next release tonight and I could make PRs updating the dependency both here and in node-gyp as soon as that's done.
@rvagg
rvagg
commented
Oct 14, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
@MylesBorins re timeline, I'll get node-gyp out asap but we have consistent windows failures now on nodejs/node-gyp#2236 so we'll have to wait to figure those out.
@rvaggrvagg
mentioned this pull request
Oct 14, 2020
 Closed

4 tasks
@rvagg
rvagg
commented
Oct 14, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
have pulled this commit in to #35635
@rvaggrvagg
closed this
Oct 14, 2020
@rvagg
rvagg
deleted the

rvagg/gyp-lib.target

branch
October 14, 2020 04:09
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@targostargosAwaiting requested review from targos

1 more reviewer

@ryzokukenryzokukenryzokuken approved these changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

buildIssues and PRs related to Node.js builds or CI infrastructure.pythonPRs and issues that require attention from people who are familiar with Python.toolsIssues and PRs related to the tools directory.

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@rvagg@nodejs-github-bot@MylesBorins@ryzokuken@Trott

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '

Skip to content
gyp,build: consistent shared library location - #35626
Closed
rvagg wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:masterfrom 
rvagg:rvagg/gyp-lib.target
Closed
gyp,build: consistent shared library location#35626
rvagg wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:masterfrom 
rvagg:rvagg/gyp-lib.target
Conversation
@rvagg
@rvaggrvagg
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Ref: nodejs/node-gyp#2233

Ref: nodejs/gyp-next#69
Pending agreement on nodejs/gyp-next#69. Perhaps this could be argued to be a breaking change here? But I'm making the case that it's a bugfix for GYP as far as node-gyp and npm is concerned. Doing this here makes it consistent across all (and matches the behaviour node-gyp has had for many years now). This really should go out with npm 7 and node 15, but I have no idea on timing on either of those things.
@nodejs/build

@nodejs/gyp

@nodejs/node-gyp
@rvagg
rvagg
requested review from
ryzokuken and targosOctober 13, 2020 08:14
@nodejs-github-botnodejs-github-bot
added

build
Issues and PRs related to Node.js builds or CI infrastructure.
tools
Issues and PRs related to the tools directory.
labels
Oct 13, 2020
@rvagg
rvagg
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
I should clarify - I've included changes to tools/gyp that are taking the place of code I would hope to be vendored in if/when the upstream patch is accepted
@nodejs-github-bot
nodejs-github-bot
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/33565/
@TrottTrott
added
the 
python
PRs and issues that require attention from people who are familiar with Python.
label
Oct 13, 2020
@nodejs-github-bot
nodejs-github-bot
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/33571/
ryzokuken
ryzokuken
approved these changes
Oct 13, 2020
View reviewed changes
@ryzokukenryzokuken
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall I'm +1 on this change, because it's more consistent and it's better to change Node than break the ecosystem. That said, this PR should not land as it is, since we need to merge the gyp PR, cut a release and upgrade instead of directly changing the files.
@MylesBorins
MylesBorins
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@ryzokuken@rvagg what is the timeline on the node-gyp update? We should get this updated in npm ASAP too, otherwise for most ecosystem use cases the preferred behavior is not going to happen
@ryzokuken
ryzokuken
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@MylesBorins we're cutting a gyp-next release tonight and I could make PRs updating the dependency both here and in node-gyp as soon as that's done.
@rvagg
rvagg
commented
Oct 14, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
@MylesBorins re timeline, I'll get node-gyp out asap but we have consistent windows failures now on nodejs/node-gyp#2236 so we'll have to wait to figure those out.
@rvaggrvagg
mentioned this pull request
Oct 14, 2020
 Closed

4 tasks
@rvagg
rvagg
commented
Oct 14, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
have pulled this commit in to #35635
@rvaggrvagg
closed this
Oct 14, 2020
@rvagg
rvagg
deleted the

rvagg/gyp-lib.target

branch
October 14, 2020 04:09
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@targostargosAwaiting requested review from targos

1 more reviewer

@ryzokukenryzokukenryzokuken approved these changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

buildIssues and PRs related to Node.js builds or CI infrastructure.pythonPRs and issues that require attention from people who are familiar with Python.toolsIssues and PRs related to the tools directory.

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@rvagg@nodejs-github-bot@MylesBorins@ryzokuken@Trott

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
gyp,build: consistent shared library location - #35626
Closed
rvagg wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:masterfrom 
rvagg:rvagg/gyp-lib.target
Closed
gyp,build: consistent shared library location#35626
rvagg wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:masterfrom 
rvagg:rvagg/gyp-lib.target
Conversation
@rvagg
@rvaggrvagg
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Ref: nodejs/node-gyp#2233

Ref: nodejs/gyp-next#69
Pending agreement on nodejs/gyp-next#69. Perhaps this could be argued to be a breaking change here? But I'm making the case that it's a bugfix for GYP as far as node-gyp and npm is concerned. Doing this here makes it consistent across all (and matches the behaviour node-gyp has had for many years now). This really should go out with npm 7 and node 15, but I have no idea on timing on either of those things.
@nodejs/build

@nodejs/gyp

@nodejs/node-gyp
@rvagg
rvagg
requested review from
ryzokuken and targosOctober 13, 2020 08:14
@nodejs-github-botnodejs-github-bot
added

build
Issues and PRs related to Node.js builds or CI infrastructure.
tools
Issues and PRs related to the tools directory.
labels
Oct 13, 2020
@rvagg
rvagg
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
I should clarify - I've included changes to tools/gyp that are taking the place of code I would hope to be vendored in if/when the upstream patch is accepted
@nodejs-github-bot
nodejs-github-bot
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/33565/
@TrottTrott
added
the 
python
PRs and issues that require attention from people who are familiar with Python.
label
Oct 13, 2020
@nodejs-github-bot
nodejs-github-bot
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/33571/
ryzokuken
ryzokuken
approved these changes
Oct 13, 2020
View reviewed changes
@ryzokukenryzokuken
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall I'm +1 on this change, because it's more consistent and it's better to change Node than break the ecosystem. That said, this PR should not land as it is, since we need to merge the gyp PR, cut a release and upgrade instead of directly changing the files.
@MylesBorins
MylesBorins
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@ryzokuken@rvagg what is the timeline on the node-gyp update? We should get this updated in npm ASAP too, otherwise for most ecosystem use cases the preferred behavior is not going to happen
@ryzokuken
ryzokuken
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@MylesBorins we're cutting a gyp-next release tonight and I could make PRs updating the dependency both here and in node-gyp as soon as that's done.
@rvagg
rvagg
commented
Oct 14, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
@MylesBorins re timeline, I'll get node-gyp out asap but we have consistent windows failures now on nodejs/node-gyp#2236 so we'll have to wait to figure those out.
@rvaggrvagg
mentioned this pull request
Oct 14, 2020
 Closed

4 tasks
@rvagg
rvagg
commented
Oct 14, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
have pulled this commit in to #35635
@rvaggrvagg
closed this
Oct 14, 2020
@rvagg
rvagg
deleted the

rvagg/gyp-lib.target

branch
October 14, 2020 04:09
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@targostargosAwaiting requested review from targos

1 more reviewer

@ryzokukenryzokukenryzokuken approved these changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

buildIssues and PRs related to Node.js builds or CI infrastructure.pythonPRs and issues that require attention from people who are familiar with Python.toolsIssues and PRs related to the tools directory.

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@rvagg@nodejs-github-bot@MylesBorins@ryzokuken@Trott

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
gyp,build: consistent shared library location - #35626
Closed
rvagg wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:masterfrom 
rvagg:rvagg/gyp-lib.target
Closed
gyp,build: consistent shared library location#35626
rvagg wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:masterfrom 
rvagg:rvagg/gyp-lib.target
Conversation
@rvagg
@rvaggrvagg
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Ref: nodejs/node-gyp#2233

Ref: nodejs/gyp-next#69
Pending agreement on nodejs/gyp-next#69. Perhaps this could be argued to be a breaking change here? But I'm making the case that it's a bugfix for GYP as far as node-gyp and npm is concerned. Doing this here makes it consistent across all (and matches the behaviour node-gyp has had for many years now). This really should go out with npm 7 and node 15, but I have no idea on timing on either of those things.
@nodejs/build

@nodejs/gyp

@nodejs/node-gyp
@rvagg
rvagg
requested review from
ryzokuken and targosOctober 13, 2020 08:14
@nodejs-github-botnodejs-github-bot
added

build
Issues and PRs related to Node.js builds or CI infrastructure.
tools
Issues and PRs related to the tools directory.
labels
Oct 13, 2020
@rvagg
rvagg
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
I should clarify - I've included changes to tools/gyp that are taking the place of code I would hope to be vendored in if/when the upstream patch is accepted
@nodejs-github-bot
nodejs-github-bot
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/33565/
@TrottTrott
added
the 
python
PRs and issues that require attention from people who are familiar with Python.
label
Oct 13, 2020
@nodejs-github-bot
nodejs-github-bot
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/33571/
ryzokuken
ryzokuken
approved these changes
Oct 13, 2020
View reviewed changes
@ryzokukenryzokuken
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall I'm +1 on this change, because it's more consistent and it's better to change Node than break the ecosystem. That said, this PR should not land as it is, since we need to merge the gyp PR, cut a release and upgrade instead of directly changing the files.
@MylesBorins
MylesBorins
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@ryzokuken@rvagg what is the timeline on the node-gyp update? We should get this updated in npm ASAP too, otherwise for most ecosystem use cases the preferred behavior is not going to happen
@ryzokuken
ryzokuken
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@MylesBorins we're cutting a gyp-next release tonight and I could make PRs updating the dependency both here and in node-gyp as soon as that's done.
@rvagg
rvagg
commented
Oct 14, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
@MylesBorins re timeline, I'll get node-gyp out asap but we have consistent windows failures now on nodejs/node-gyp#2236 so we'll have to wait to figure those out.
@rvaggrvagg
mentioned this pull request
Oct 14, 2020
 Closed

4 tasks
@rvagg
rvagg
commented
Oct 14, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
have pulled this commit in to #35635
@rvaggrvagg
closed this
Oct 14, 2020
@rvagg
rvagg
deleted the

rvagg/gyp-lib.target

branch
October 14, 2020 04:09
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@targostargosAwaiting requested review from targos

1 more reviewer

@ryzokukenryzokukenryzokuken approved these changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

buildIssues and PRs related to Node.js builds or CI infrastructure.pythonPRs and issues that require attention from people who are familiar with Python.toolsIssues and PRs related to the tools directory.

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@rvagg@nodejs-github-bot@MylesBorins@ryzokuken@Trott

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();

Skip to content
gyp,build: consistent shared library location - #35626
Closed
rvagg wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:masterfrom 
rvagg:rvagg/gyp-lib.target
Closed
gyp,build: consistent shared library location#35626
rvagg wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:masterfrom 
rvagg:rvagg/gyp-lib.target
Conversation
@rvagg
@rvaggrvagg
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Ref: nodejs/node-gyp#2233

Ref: nodejs/gyp-next#69
Pending agreement on nodejs/gyp-next#69. Perhaps this could be argued to be a breaking change here? But I'm making the case that it's a bugfix for GYP as far as node-gyp and npm is concerned. Doing this here makes it consistent across all (and matches the behaviour node-gyp has had for many years now). This really should go out with npm 7 and node 15, but I have no idea on timing on either of those things.
@nodejs/build

@nodejs/gyp

@nodejs/node-gyp
@rvagg
rvagg
requested review from
ryzokuken and targosOctober 13, 2020 08:14
@nodejs-github-botnodejs-github-bot
added

build
Issues and PRs related to Node.js builds or CI infrastructure.
tools
Issues and PRs related to the tools directory.
labels
Oct 13, 2020
@rvagg
rvagg
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
I should clarify - I've included changes to tools/gyp that are taking the place of code I would hope to be vendored in if/when the upstream patch is accepted
@nodejs-github-bot
nodejs-github-bot
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/33565/
@TrottTrott
added
the 
python
PRs and issues that require attention from people who are familiar with Python.
label
Oct 13, 2020
@nodejs-github-bot
nodejs-github-bot
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/33571/
ryzokuken
ryzokuken
approved these changes
Oct 13, 2020
View reviewed changes
@ryzokukenryzokuken
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall I'm +1 on this change, because it's more consistent and it's better to change Node than break the ecosystem. That said, this PR should not land as it is, since we need to merge the gyp PR, cut a release and upgrade instead of directly changing the files.
@MylesBorins
MylesBorins
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@ryzokuken@rvagg what is the timeline on the node-gyp update? We should get this updated in npm ASAP too, otherwise for most ecosystem use cases the preferred behavior is not going to happen
@ryzokuken
ryzokuken
commented
Oct 13, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@MylesBorins we're cutting a gyp-next release tonight and I could make PRs updating the dependency both here and in node-gyp as soon as that's done.
@rvagg
rvagg
commented
Oct 14, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
@MylesBorins re timeline, I'll get node-gyp out asap but we have consistent windows failures now on nodejs/node-gyp#2236 so we'll have to wait to figure those out.
@rvaggrvagg
mentioned this pull request
Oct 14, 2020
 Closed

4 tasks
@rvagg
rvagg
commented
Oct 14, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
have pulled this commit in to #35635
@rvaggrvagg
closed this
Oct 14, 2020
@rvagg
rvagg
deleted the

rvagg/gyp-lib.target

branch
October 14, 2020 04:09
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@targostargosAwaiting requested review from targos

1 more reviewer

@ryzokukenryzokukenryzokuken approved these changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

buildIssues and PRs related to Node.js builds or CI infrastructure.pythonPRs and issues that require attention from people who are familiar with Python.toolsIssues and PRs related to the tools directory.

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@rvagg@nodejs-github-bot@MylesBorins@ryzokuken@Trott