Skip to content
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

Remove outdated reference to --without-node argument #916

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 6, 2019
Merged

Remove outdated reference to --without-node argument #916

merged 1 commit into from
Feb 6, 2019

Conversation

rypit
Copy link
Contributor

@rypit rypit commented Feb 5, 2019

Homebrew/homebrew-core#36222 removed support for passing arguments to brew install yarn. As such, we can no longer specify the --without-node option.

@rypit
Copy link
Contributor Author

rypit commented Feb 5, 2019

Adresses #913 and is related to yarnpkg/yarn#6946

@DanBuild
Copy link
Contributor

DanBuild commented Feb 5, 2019

Deploy preview for yarnpkg ready!

Built with commit 29cc5b6

https://deploy-preview-916--yarnpkg.netlify.com

@Daniel15
Copy link
Member

Daniel15 commented Feb 5, 2019

Maybe this should say something like "If you use nvm or similar, you should install Yarn using the bash script to avoid installing an extra version of Node.js" and include the tarball instructions (same as what we display for RC / nightly releases)?

Ideally we'd like if someone could create a Homebrew "tap" that includes the --without-node option.

--without-node is no longer part of the [yarn formula](https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/blob/master/Formula/yarn.rb), and node is its only dependency. Addresses #913.
@rypit
Copy link
Contributor Author

rypit commented Feb 5, 2019

@Daniel15 Based on the various threads on this, it seems like users with nvm/nodenv could get the same benefit of getting yarn without the homebrew version of node by passing the --ignore-dependencies flag, since node is the only dependency for the formula.

I've updated this PR to include the tweak to the notes for those users.

I'm happy to create a formula, but would that be a larger discussion since it would introduce the following concerns(?):

  • Would we want to maintain a tap with an almost duplicate Formula that's not part of homebrew-core?
  • Would we want to remove yarn from homebrew-core to avoid duplication?
  • Where would the new formula live?

@Daniel15
Copy link
Member

Daniel15 commented Feb 6, 2019

* Would we want to remove yarn from homebrew-core to avoid duplication?

I think so... Depends on if the Homebrew team let us do that.

* Where would the new formula live?

It could probably live in here: https://github.com/yarnpkg/releases

I'm not sure if that's the best approach or not, since I'm not very familiar with Homebrew.

@Daniel15
Copy link
Member

Daniel15 commented Feb 6, 2019

Anyways, this site change looks fine for now, so let's merge it.

@Daniel15 Daniel15 merged commit 61cad9d into yarnpkg:master Feb 6, 2019
@rypit
Copy link
Contributor Author

rypit commented Feb 6, 2019

🙇Thanks for the merge @Daniel15!

I'm not sure if that's the best approach or not, since I'm not very familiar with Homebrew ... It could probably live in here: https://github.com/yarnpkg/releases

If we put it there, we'd have to add the repo url when telling mac users how to tap. Install instructions would look something like:

brew tap yarnpkg/yarn https://github.com/yarnpkg/releases.git
brew install yarnpkg/yarn --without-node # or something similar to that

Homebrew convention is that tap repos are named in the following format: yarnpkg/homebrew-yarn. This would allow us to brew tap yarnpgk/yarn which is a little less verbose.

I'm not sure either of the above are ideal.

As long as the dependencies for yarn stay stable, the current formula in homebrew-core may be the best experience for homebrew users (no custom taps required, principal of least surprise, homebrew users will maintain it).

If it's decided otherwise please let me know, I'm happy to get involved.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants