stop tracking node_modules/

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 116 deletions

diff --git a/node_modules/node-gyp/gyp/docs/GypVsCMake.md b/node_modules/node-gyp/gyp/docs/GypVsCMake.md
deleted file mode 100644
index 6d659a6..0000000
--- a/node_modules/node-gyp/gyp/docs/GypVsCMake.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,116 +0,0 @@
-# vs. CMake
-
-GYP was originally created to generate native IDE project files (Visual Studio, Xcode) for building [Chromium](http://www.chromim.org).
-
-The functionality of GYP is very similar to the [CMake](http://www.cmake.org)
-build tool.  Bradley Nelson wrote up the following description of why the team
-created GYP instead of using CMake.  The text below is copied from
-http://www.mail-archive.com/webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org/msg11029.html
-
-```
-
-Re: [webkit-dev] CMake as a build system?
-Bradley Nelson
-Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:38:30 -0700
-
-Here's the innards of an email with a laundry list of stuff I came up with a
-while back on the gyp-developers list in response to Mike Craddick regarding
-what motivated gyp's development, since we were aware of cmake at the time
-(we'd even started a speculative port):
-
-
-I did an exploratory port of portions of Chromium to cmake (I think I got as
-far as net, base, sandbox, and part of webkit).
-There were a number of motivations, not all of which would apply to other
-projects. Also, some of the design of gyp was informed by experience at
-Google with large projects built wholly from source, leading to features
-absent from cmake, but not strictly required for Chromium.
-
-1. Ability to incrementally transition on Windows. It took us about 6 months
-to switch fully to gyp. Previous attempts to move to scons had taken a long
-time and failed, due to the requirement to transition while in flight. For a
-substantial period of time, we had a hybrid of checked in vcproj and gyp generated
-vcproj. To this day we still have a good number of GUIDs pinned in the gyp files,
-because different parts of our release pipeline have leftover assumptions
-regarding manipulating the raw sln/vcprojs. This transition occurred from
-the bottom up, largely because modules like base were easier to convert, and
-had a lower churn rate. During early stages of the transition, the majority
-of the team wasn't even aware they were using gyp, as it integrated into
-their existing workflow, and only affected modules that had been converted.
-
-2. Generation of a more 'normal' vcproj file. Gyp attempts, particularly on
-Windows, to generate vcprojs which resemble hand generated projects. It
-doesn't generate any Makefile type projects, but instead produces msvs
-Custom Build Steps and Custom Build Rules. This makes the resulting projects
-easier to understand from the IDE and avoids parts of the IDE that simply
-don't function correctly if you use Makefile projects. Our early hope with
-gyp was to support the least common denominator of features present in each
-of the platform specific project file formats, rather than falling back on
-generated Makefiles/shell scripts to emulate some common abstraction. CMake by
-comparison makes a good faith attempt to use native project features, but
-falls back on generated scripts in order to preserve the same semantics on
-each platforms.
-
-3. Abstraction on the level of project settings, rather than command line
-flags. In gyp's syntax you can add nearly any option present in a hand
-generated xcode/vcproj file. This allows you to use abstractions built into
-the IDEs rather than reverse engineering them possibly incorrectly for
-things like: manifest generation, precompiled headers, bundle generation.
-When somebody wants to use a particular menu option from msvs, I'm able to
-do a web search on the name of the setting from the IDE and provide them
-with a gyp stanza that does the equivalent. In many cases, not all project
-file constructs correspond to command line flags.
-
-4. Strong notion of module public/private interface. Gyp allows targets to
-publish a set of direct_dependent_settings, specifying things like
-include_dirs, defines, platforms specific settings, etc. This means that
-when module A depends on module B, it automatically acquires the right build
-settings without module A being filled with assumptions/knowledge of exactly
-how module B is built. Additionally, all of the transitive dependencies of
-module B are pulled in. This avoids their being a single top level view of
-the project, rather each gyp file expresses knowledge about its immediate
-neighbors. This keep local knowledge local. CMake effectively has a large
-shared global namespace.
-
-5. Cross platform generation. CMake is not able to generate all project
-files on all platforms. For example xcode projects cannot be generated from
-windows (cmake uses mac specific libraries to do project generation). This
-means that for instance generating a tarball containing pregenerated
-projects for all platforms is hard with Cmake (requires distribution to
-several machine types).
-
-6. Gyp has rudimentary cross compile support. Currently we've added enough
-functionality to gyp to support x86 -> arm cross compiles. Last I checked
-this functionality wasn't present in cmake. (This occurred later).
-
-
-That being said there are a number of drawbacks currently to gyp:
-
-1. Because platform specific settings are expressed at the project file
-level (rather than the command line level). Settings which might otherwise
-be shared in common between platforms (flags to gcc on mac/linux), end up
-being repeated twice. Though in fairness there is actually less sharing here
-than you'd think. include_dirs and defines actually represent 90% of what
-can be typically shared.
-
-2. CMake may be more mature, having been applied to a broader range of
-projects. There a number of 'tool modules' for cmake, which are shared in a
-common community.
-
-3. gyp currently makes some nasty assumptions about the availability of
-chromium's hermetic copy of cygwin on windows. This causes you to either
-have to special case a number of rules, or swallow this copy of cygwin as a
-build time dependency.
-
-4. CMake includes a fairly readable imperative language. Currently Gyp has a
-somewhat poorly specified declarative language (variable expansion happens
-in sometimes weird and counter-intuitive ways). In fairness though, gyp assumes
-that external python scripts can be used as an escape hatch. Also gyp avoids
-a lot of the things you'd need imperative code for, by having a nice target
-settings publication mechanism.
-
-5. (Feature/drawback depending on personal preference). Gyp's syntax is
-DEEPLY nested. It suffers from all of Lisp's advantages and drawbacks.
-
--BradN
-```