How should we name node-js ports ?

[Bradley T. Hughes]

> On 15 May 2017, at 20:22, Rodrigo Osorio <ros at bebik.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Adam,
> 
> Thanks for your feedback.
> 
> On 05/15/17 18:52, Adam Weinberger wrote:
>>> On 15 May, 2017, at 6:57, Ruslan Makhmatkhanov <rm at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> npm packages can be installed by yarn as well; nodejs is really the common name and makes a better prefix.
>>> 
>>> That said, making node ports does not sit well with me. npm/yarn manages node packages. Things will break if a user has those same packages installed globally and tries to update or remove them, or if a user needs specific global versions installed.

I agree with this sentiment. It also does not sit well with me to use one package manager (pkg) to run another package manager (npm) to install dependencies.

In my expereince, Node.js apps tend to have their dependencies installed locally, as it is too easy to get into conflicts or incompatibilities with globally installed versions.  The exception to the rule is for things that install a runnable command, like grunt-cli, npm, mocha, and so on.

>>> Rodrigo, I think your better option is simply to bundle those dependencies yourself, at the specific versions that your port requires, and install them to a private location.
> I decide to split the dependencies in several packages and I use npm a short perform the package installation before
> the staging. That way node packages remains available to other and can be reused as dependencies for others node ports.

Like expressed above, I think the "remains available to other and can be reused as dependencies for others" can be more harmful than helpful.

--
Bradley T. Hughes
bradleythughes at fastmail.fm