fixes #531

[hedefalk]

Looking at mapbox/node-pre-gyp@ef79b3f (which doesn't work for apm) I got the feeling that just stating runtime=electron would be a pretty good idea. And it was.

Tried it by simply running:

"/Applications/Atom Beta.app/Contents/Resources/app/apm/bin/node" "/Applications/Atom Beta.app/Contents/Resources/app/apm/node_modules/npm/bin/npm-cli.js" "--globalconfig" "/Users/viktor/.atom/.apm/.apmrc" "--userconfig" "/Users/viktor/.atom/.apmrc" "rebuild" "--target=0.34.5" "--arch=x64" "--runtime=electron"

Without --runtime=electron, node-pre-gyp fails like

• Electron runtime detection mapbox/node-pre-gyp#188
• Depedencies: node-pre-gyp drags in a whole lot of new of dependencies fsevents/fsevents#93 (comment)
• Depedencies: node-pre-gyp drags in a whole lot of new of dependencies fsevents/fsevents#93 (comment)

[hedefalk]

Can someone give me some hints on what testing I should produce to get this accepted?

Currently apm rebuild simply doesn't work for any package that uses fs-events since node-pre-gyp just blows up. If I just add --runtime=electron to /Applications/Atom.app/Contents/Resources/app/apm/lib/rebuild.js:

rebuildArgs = ['--globalconfig', config.getGlobalConfigPath(), '--runtime=electron', '--userconfig', config.getUserConfigPath(), 'rebuild', "--target=" + this.electronVersion, "--arch=" + (config.getElectronArch())];

it does work and my package then loads which it doesn't without it because:

Failed to require the main module of 'Ensime' because it requires an incompatible native module.
Run `apm rebuild` in the package directory to resolve.

[Glavin001]

@hedefalk : Thank you! This finally resolves my issues building atom-beautify. This was extremely frustrating because apm rebuild did not resolve the issue and there did not seem to be a clear solution. However, this is it! Works perfectly. Thank you for your research and creating this Pull Request. Hopefully this is merged soon!

@50Wliu and @lee-dohm : What is the expected workaround until this is merged? I just noticed the date of this Pull request is May 13th. Any progress on this issue? Maybe I am missing something and this is no longer needed (using Atom 1.8.0, apm 1.9.2). However, apm rebuild consistently failed to resolve this issue and running the following immediately resolved the issue:

"/Applications/Atom Beta.app/Contents/Resources/app/apm/bin/node" "/Applications/Atom Beta.app/Contents/Resources/app/apm/node_modules/npm/bin/npm-cli.js" "--globalconfig" "/Users/viktor/.atom/.apm/.apmrc" "--userconfig" "/Users/viktor/.atom/.apmrc" "rebuild" "--target=0.34.5" "--arch=x64" "--runtime=electron"

[ghost]

Can we please get this PR merged already?

The build problems with fsevents have been reported several times across multiple repositories. This PR is a very small change that fixes it. If there is some reason why it cannot be merged, can we at least get a response to that effect from someone on the Atom team?

[50Wliu]

This has been fixed via #596.

[ghost]

So it's nice that this was fixed but I have to say that as a potential contributor it's extremely disappointing to see that this PR, which fixed a pretty serious issue for some extension developers, was sitting here since March and basically ignored but a duplicate PR (with some additions, granted) submitted by an Atom member was merged in under 8 hours…

[Glavin001]

I agree with @freebroccolo.

Although I will point out that the other Pull Request ( #596 ) does implement a couple more changes than the one-liner in this PR: https://github.com/atom/apm/pull/596/files

[thomasjo]

@freebroccolo I agree with you. We dropped the ball on this one. As mentioned by @Glavin001, the merged PR does have additional changes, but we probably should have built #596 on top of this PR.