-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31.9k
build: support out of tree build #10751
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Please re-add the check-list from the PR template, particularly the "follows standard commit message format" Use standard commit format https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#step-3-commit I've no idea what "d." means. |
I assume Note: it's rather difficult to find the PR template: I had to start creating a new PR, and that took a long time when trying to compare some of the available branches to allow me to see the template. |
updates the configure script to differentiate between the src (project; previously 'root_dir') and the build directories, which may be different
The template is here: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md |
This should be tested on the CI, otherwise it's going to be broken again a few months from now. I don't really see a compelling reason to support out-of-tree builds, though. Just copy the source tree, no build system changes required. |
The tree is ~4 GB+. |
Not really an issue though, is it? Storage is cheap and plentiful nowadays. I have about 50 GB worth of checkouts and that's 2.5% of total disk space. |
Are the Makefiles generated, or are they maintained by hand or with a tool
somehow somehow?
…On Jan 13, 2017 8:47 AM, "Ben Noordhuis" ***@***.***> wrote:
Not really an issue though, is it? Storage is cheap and plentiful
nowadays. I have about 50 GB worth of checkouts and that's 2.5% of total
disk space.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#10751 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIJQTxwzNS27LBq1S1rSdi2H9U9OCWn-ks5rR452gaJpZM4LhRVs>
.
|
They are generated by gyp, from tools/gyp. Only the top-level Makefile is handwritten. |
Any updates on this one? |
I haven't needed to build node (npm, really) since making this request. It seems the team doesn't wish to support this, so I've stopped. The impetus for this issue was that The next steps here are to look at how gyp generates the Makefiles. I'm not familiar with gyp, but one should be able to follow the rabbit hole by looking for It's possible that the one line change to |
I'm not following. How do |
They relate like so: I needed to perform many builds of Node, while preferring to retain the compilations and build configurations, while searching a solution to the longstanding A build supporting out-of-source-tree building does this very nicely, and is the typical solution; hence this PR. I've stopped using |
I do not have a strong opinion on this but would it not be best to try to solve the issue on npm? |
I don't build Node.js/npm very often, so I won't be continuing with this effort here. |
Beginnings of #10748.
Checklist
make -j4 test
(UNIX), orvcbuild test
(Windows) passesAffected core subsystem(s)
build; none?