node-gyp: init at 10.2.0

[dotlambda]

Description of changes

see #229475

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
  • sandbox = relaxed
  • sandbox = true
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 24.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.11 and 24.05 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

---

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

[dotlambda]

@ofborg eval

[doronbehar]

Thanks for working on this :). Changes look good to me, but I'd wait for more reviewers to respond... A nixpkgs-review report would be nice too.

[gepbird]

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 334377 run on x86_64-linux 1

2 packages failed to build:

• code-server
• openvscode-server

6 packages built:

• balena-cli
• cdxgen
• n8n
• node-gyp
• nodehun
• vscode-js-debug

[gepbird]

code-server fails on master too, no new failures 🚀

Tested the update script, changes LGTM!

[thomasjm]

Thanks for working on this. The nodehun package works, so I'm happy as far as the packages I maintain.

I wish this didn't require adding 5,000 lines of package-lock.json though. One of the main motivations mentioned in #229475 is to avoid having a centralized update script that takes 4 hours to run. But breaking that up into separate packages that have their own update scripts and a large increase in lockfile data doesn't necessarily seem like an improvement. I see the node-gyp repo doesn't provide a lockfile but it would be nice if there were some other way to do this. Approving though because I have no idea what that way would be :)

[doronbehar]

I wish this didn't require adding 5,000 lines of package-lock.json though.

I too feel the same. I was wondering, do we have a clue why upstream won't track such a file in their repository? That's the best I found:

nodejs/node-gyp@020e2bd (#1573)

[dotlambda]

do we have a clue why upstream won't track such a file in their repository?

Technically projects that use node-gyp should include it in their devDependencies, so you shouldn't need to install it globally. I think such kinds of libraries are not recommended to ship a lock file.