search

linemanjs / lineman-browserify

A Lineman plugin that configures Browserify for you
6 stars 5 forks source link

Don't create entrypoint if it exists as js #11

Closed jasonkarns closed 10 years ago

jasonkarns commented 10 years ago

b5a11ae44cd0db7ddf30174a0f5e4eed8837734e

searls commented 10 years ago

Not just that it should be looking at files.browserify.entrypoint. If the user changes it later and then installs a new version it's not enough to check coffee or JS.

On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Jason Karns notifications@github.com wrote:

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/linemanjs/lineman-browserify/issues/11

jasonkarns commented 10 years ago

Yeah, this is just a half step. To avoid the general rename case we have two options that I see.

1) don't run this script at install time (perhaps by tying it into the lineman install subcommand linemanjs/lineman#218) 2) pulling the config value from lineman itself. which doesn't really make sense during the first install because lineman may not even be available at that point.

Does npm fire off the postinstall scripts as each package is installed? Or queue them up and fire them off after the entire install is finished?

searls commented 10 years ago

I think lineman will always be available at install time. As a peer dep, npm will ensure it's there first.

On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Jason Karns notifications@github.com wrote:

Yeah, this is just a half step. To avoid the general rename case: 1) don't run this script at install time (perhaps by tying it into the lineman install subcommand linemanjs/lineman#218) 2) pulling the config value from lineman itself. which doesn't really make sense during the first install because lineman may not even be available at that point.

Does npm fire off the postinstall scripts as each package is installed? Or queue them up and fire them off after the entire install is finished?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/linemanjs/lineman-browserify/issues/11#issuecomment-36430656