Adds iojs formula meeting requests by @mikemcquaid

[bcomnes]

I know there are some existing PRs, but this one tries to meet all the requests made in #35853 (comment)

This will probably need editing for message style. Apologies if this isn't what the maintainers are currently looking for.

[DomT4]

This might be redundant from the url. If it is, it should show up under brew audit.

[DomT4]

Can't comment on what the maintainers want here, but aside the few tiny nits I highlighted, the submission itself is great in terms of style, thanks :)

[DomT4]

Potentially export PATH=#{Formula["iojs"].opt_bin}:$PATH :)

[bcomnes]

Thanks @DomT4, all good points fixing now.

[DomT4]

Thanks for the quick fixes, Appreciate that a lot!

[DomT4]

Blank line here needs to be removed. Otherwise, Bot reports all is good.

==> brew audit iojs --strict                         FAILED
==> brew style iojs
== /usr/local/Library/Formula/iojs.rb ==
C: 12:  1: Extra blank line detected.

1 file inspected, 1 offense detected

[bcomnes]

Should this have a depends_on "npm" so that a copy of npm gets installed via node?

[DomT4]

It'd have to be a depends_on "node" rather than npm, but I don't think it's needed. There may be someone out there who wants to use iojs without npm and if we stuck in a node dep we'd almost be forcing one onto them, alas.

[MikeMcQuaid]

Great work here @bcomnes and @DomT4. Just merged.

[DomT4]

Thanks all. Good to get this in; Appreciate the sheer amount of work everyone poured into it.

[rvagg]

Note that that we are currently patching npm released in io.js to properly download source (headers) for native addon compiles. The general npm distribution won't do this properly and therefore won't compile any native addons. We are working on a fix for this but it's not there yet.

[rvagg]

e.g. try npm install buffertools as a quick test for this to see it fail

[MikeMcQuaid]

@rvagg This isn't using the npm provided in iojs.

[rvagg]

that's my point

[MikeMcQuaid]

@rvagg Sorry, I'm not sure how we're expected to resolve this? Should I just revoke this formula until you say it's ready to be used with an unpatched npm?

[MikeMcQuaid]

@rvagg Also, did I miss in the previous PR where someone had mentioned this?

[rvagg]

just pointing it out, that's all, #35853 has appropriately set my expectations about resolutions

[MikeMcQuaid]

@rvagg That's not helpful; I'm doing my best to try and get your software working in Homebrew. From that PR:

npm works the same under each of them, so there's no reason to have two different npm installs
@aredridel

Speaking as the npm CLI team lead, we draw no distinction between joyent/node and iojs/io.js. We support them both equally.
@othiym23

@rvagg Did you not think it might be worth correcting these statements before this got merged? Might have been more productive than tweeting about bikeshedding. If you're not interested in helping me work out a solution to this then I'm going to revoke iojs shortly.

[MikeMcQuaid]

Clarified the situation in 8fa3572. Given comments in #35853 I suspect this may make iojs currently useless for people but I'm not really sure what else to do. Sorry for my snark and thanks for the clarification @rvagg.

[bcomnes]

It seems like the question now becomes, is there a single npm that can adequately serve both node and iojs based on PATH ordering? I'll poke around and see what I can find out.

[aredridel]

npm runs equally well on both; if a user changes which 'node' runs (be it version or switching between iojs and node) then binary addons will need to be rebuilt by npm rebuild on that module, but npm itself will stay running.

[bcomnes]

@aredridel thats what I thought to but this was just clarified:

we are currently patching npm released in io.js to properly download source (headers)
@rvagg

So it seems there are differences between the versions of npm distributed between node and iojs

Also, I believe having the current formula is progress, and it works to some degree with the non-patched npm version, although it will be critical to find a fully compatible solution. Looking for a simple solution.

[bcomnes]

To clarify whats going on:

s/npm/node-gyp/ - it's node-gyp that's doing the downloading
@bnoordhuis

iojs npm isn't whats patched, the node-gyp dependency is, and this patch has been submitted upstream nodejs/node-gyp#564

Here is the forked node-gyp: https://github.com/iojs/io.js/tree/v1.x/deps/npm/bin/node-gyp-bin

Next questions: Is it possible to apply that patch to npm's node-gyp? Or would that break compatibility with node?

[MikeMcQuaid]

@bcomnes I'd rather hold off until that PR is merged and we've got a new npm release we can use for both.

[bcomnes]

Seems fair. I'll probe around and keep an ear out.