I have some puppet module, which is not in the forge and I am not interested to put it there. The module has all it's dependencies written down in the metadata.json and for the installation I usually just clone the module from its git repo directly into /etc/puppet/modules/.
When I now call puppet module list the missing modules are listed, for example like this:
Warning: Missing dependency 'puppetlabs-apt':
'<name>' (v0.0.0) requires 'puppetlabs-apt' (>= 0.0.0)
Warning: Missing dependency 'puppetlabs-stdlib':
'<name>' (v0.0.0) requires 'puppetlabs-stdlib' (>= 0.0.0)
Warning: Missing dependency 'puppetlabs-vcsrepo':
Is there anyway to let puppet install the dependencies for non-forge modules, despite the manual way by installing it with puppet module install ... ?
You need librarian-puppet. With it you can easily manage the modules and its dependencies.
Introduction
Librarian-puppet is a bundler for your puppet infrastructure. You can use librarian-puppet to manage the puppet modules your infrastructure depends on, whether the modules come from the Puppet Forge, Git repositories or just a path.
You can download it from here librarian-puppet
Related
This is probably a pretty basic question, but I can't find an answer:
If I have a project with a dependency in package.json listed as foobar: ^3.2.1, what version of that dependency will be installed when I run vite build, assuming that the latest available version of the package is 3.4.5?
First thing first, vite build won't change anything to your dependencies. I won't install ones nor update them. It will only build your project (i.e. compile / transpile / minify / bundle etc.) using your source code and the code it imports (likely within the node_modules).
It will build locally, so using your local dependencies in the node_modules folder.
To check the current package version you have installed, you can run:
npm list --depth=0 | grep foobar
(The grep part is optional)
You can also open your package-lock.json or yarn.lock file and search for your package to know to what version your package has been fixed to.
To understand about the semantic version with npm, read this documentation: https://docs.npmjs.com/about-semantic-versioning
I have a situation where there was an update in one of npm packages I use in my project, but author didn't publish it on npmjs registry, so up to date code sits in gitlab only.
What would be the best solution to get updated version of code? I believe there is a way to add dependency to project which will be downloaded from gitlab or github public repository directly? Is it possible to compile it like in npmjs as well?
Yes, you could install a dependency from a git repository directly. As can be seen in the npm docs. You can straight install a Git Remote repository like this:
npm install <git remote url>
e.g.
npm install git://github.com/npm/cli.git
But beware that installing directly from the source git might have unintended side effects (missing build files, additional documentation files in general changes to the npmjs Version).
Also installing from the repository I would recommend you install from a specific commit/Tag.
I have a repository that has a bunch of peer dev dependencies (this repo is a standalone eslint config, like airbnb).
If I used this in a another project as a node module (importing it through github, not retrieving it through npm), will the package-lock.json file that is generated in this module be used in the callers project?
No. Per the documentation, package-lock.json files "will be ignored if found in any place other than the toplevel package."
If you want lock-file behavior in a dependency, use a shrinkwrap file instead.
Assuming you are still installing with the npm client, the fact that you are retrieving the package from somewhere other than the npm registry doesn't affect this behavior.
I have just started using yarn and I can't figure out how to link a globally installed package to a project. With npm I would just run npm link <package-name> but it doesn't work with yarn.
when I run yarn link <package-name> it gives this error:
yarn link v1.22.4
error No registered package found called "express".
info Visit https://yarnpkg.com/en/docs/cli/link for documentation about this command.
The link functionality is not really meant for linking global packages to a project. It is meant to link a package that you are working on to another project that you are working on. The fact, that the npm link command can be used to link globally installed packages to the current project is just an implementation detail of npm. From the yarn docs:
For the vast majority of packages it is considered a bad practice to have global dependencies because they are implicit. It is much better to add all of your dependencies locally so that they are explicit and anyone else using your project gets the same set of dependencies.
So you should just add the dependencies via yarn add <package-name>.
Does it make sense to put any modules into package.json dependencies when I use webpack?
When I want to develope a package, I use git clone <url> then npm install, then npm installs all dependencies and devDependencies from package.json file and it makes sense.
When I'm end-user and I just want to install some package into my node_modules to use it in my project, I run npm install package-name, then npm installs package-name with only its dependencies, and it makes sense too.
But does it make sense to put any modules into dependencies when I use webpack? The webpack will bundle all dependencies into eg. bundle.js, so, for me, there is no need to install dependencies then (while they're included into bundle.js file).
Let's assume that I put all neccessary modules into devDependencies (keep the dependencies object empty) for my project: my-project, bundle it with webpack and publish:
the developer-user will use git clone <url to my_project>, then run npm install, then npm will install devDependencies from package.json (and ommit empty dependencies object), then it is ready to develope.
the end-user will use npm install my-project, then npm will install my-project, do not install devDependencies (because this is for production) and do not install dependencies (because dependencies object in package.json remain empty). Putting anything into dependencies would double the dependencies: both the dependencies would be installed, and the same dependencies would be accessible in the bundle.js file.
Am I right?
You are correct that there may be no dependencies once it's been transpiled with webpack. However, some packages are multi-purpose and may be used in multiple ways, so in some circumstances dependencies may still be required.
If you look at the package.json specification, there are two possible entry points, 'main' and 'browser'. There is also the proposed 'module' entry point. It is currently under discussion about how to handle these in webpack and users seem to want webpack to prioritize them as module > browser > main, however browser is currently used by webpack first.
The idea behind prioritizing them in the order module > browser > main is presumably that browsers could use the pre-transpiled stuff directly in "browser", whereas another project calling require() or include() on your package would use non-transpiled code from the "module" entry. The "module" entry code could contain modern JavaScript with new features and the project/package requiring it could then transpile it to their own specifications, using "browserslist" for example.
I found this question because I was wondering the same thing...