Add NodeJS_16, with Apple Silicon support #2869
Conversation
|
@MichaelHatherly This was a bit of a shot in the dark and leans entirely on your work, but the checks appear to have succeeded 🤞 . If you have a chance to give this a quick review / any feedback, would be thrilled. :) |
Following NodeJS script by MichaelHatherly, Source here: https://github.com/JuliaPackaging/Yggdrasil/pull/2739/files
|
Are you able to confirm locally that the built artifact for apple silicon does actually work? |
|
If we're going to have multiple parallel versions of NodeJS, it'd be better to have them in |
Yep, just did, it works! |
|
@giordano Think a common script might be overkill, given that the build script itself is 10 lines long and everything else is config / boilerplate. Folder structure is updated. Thoughts? |
|
I think this is excellent! NodeJSBuilder supports more platforms (see here), could we add the remaining ones here as well? |
|
Also, could we add NodeJS_14 as well? Would be good to have the current LTS release also supported. I would suggest that for the node 14 build we just repackage the x64 binaries for apple silicon, for node 14 only. |
|
Ah, didn't see that! |
|
@davidanthoff added the missing platforms with some caveats: i686 on Linux doesn't seem to be supported as a built node binary: https://github.com/nodesource/distributions#faq |
|
Ah, yes, this is actually a better reflection of what gets currently packaged in NodeJSBuilder. I think the only platform that I'm packing there that isn't packaged here in this PR yet is linux arm7? |
|
@davidanthoff oops, failed to push, recheck now |
|
@jeremiahpslewis if you'd like to PR similar changes, if they're needed, against my nodejs 14 branch then we can sort that one out as well? |
|
Gladly, it's now done, please see here: https://github.com/MichaelHatherly/Yggdrasil/pull/2ase |
Thanks. |
| # The products that we will ensure are always built | ||
| products = [ | ||
| ExecutableProduct("node", :node), | ||
| FileProduct("bin/npm", :npm), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jeremiahpslewis, sorry for the ping on an old PR, but any reason in particular npm isn't an ExecutableProduct? instead of FileProduct?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because that's not a binary executable, but a script which needs an interpreter (node in this case)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah, makes sense. so usage would be run('$node $npm ...'), right?
Following NodeJS script by @MichaelHatherly,
Source here: https://github.com/JuliaPackaging/Yggdrasil/pull/2739/files