install,windows: symlink iojs -> node?

Question

install,windows: symlink iojs -> node?

bnoordhuis opened this issue 11 years ago · 16 comments

Per today's TC meeting, we're going to rename the binary to iojs and ln -s iojs node on install, provided there isn't already a binary with that name in the target directory.

Symlinks on Windows require elevated privileges and are therefore probably not an option. What to do? I see two options:

Only install iojs, no symlink. Least amount of effort.
Provide a stub node.exe or node.cmd (if that works) that executes iojs.
Something else - but what?

Input welcome.

/cc @domenic @piscisaureus

Answer 1 · 2014-12-10T21:08:09.000Z

For reasons @piscisaureus probably understands better than me (I think PATH_EXT is involved?), the stub node.exe (not node.cmd) will give the most seamless experience. That is what Git does as of ~1.8 on Windows, if I recall.

Answer 2 · 2014-12-10T21:10:36.000Z

Windows, starting with Vista, supports actual symlinks. But one of the other solutions is probably best if windows XP support is needed.

Answer 3 · 2014-12-10T21:12:13.000Z

@gkatsev without elevated privileges?

Answer 4 · 2014-12-10T21:36:01.000Z

@domenic elevated privileges are needed for writing to privileged areas like C:/Program Files et al, but otherwise, doesn't require extra privileges.

Answer 5 · 2014-12-11T00:39:34.000Z

@gkatsev If wish you were right but you are not. On windows creating symlinks always requires elevation.

Answer 6 · 2014-12-11T17:45:36.000Z

Interesting, I was certain it didn't require elevation. I just tried it just to be sure and it does. That really is too bad.

Answer 7 · 2014-12-11T18:26:48.000Z

I posted in that other thread, but if this is more on topic, I'll repost it:

NAN requires executing 'node' to find the location of the header. Windows compatibility is the main source of problems when it comes to using multiple alternative names. nodejs/nan#70

Answer 8 · 2014-12-15T09:02:46.000Z

-1 on this. io.js looks like it will have some breaking API changes from node.js, which means cross-compatibility of io.js and node.js apps won't always be 100% guaranteed. having a node symlink by default may hold progress back.

Answer 9 · 2014-12-21T07:28:20.000Z

@bnoordhuis @domenic @piscisaureus it is quite common for installers to require elevation on windows, why not just do that?

Answer 10 · 2014-12-22T12:03:59.000Z

Short update: after some discussion, it got clear that it's not really possible to reliably detect if an existing install was done by joyent/node, iojs or a mashup of the two (e.g. an iojs install that got scribbled over by joyent/node.) The tentative conclusion is that we are not going to try and simply trust that the user knows what s/he is doing.

Answer 11 · 2015-01-09T16:45:01.000Z

Instead of iojs why not just io. In this day and age do we really need the js... Facebook vs The Facebook

Answer 12 · 2015-01-09T17:03:28.000Z

@geek it was mentioned earlier that io already conflicts with some programming languages

Answer 13 · 2015-01-09T17:11:17.000Z

For the package name iojs makes sense, but for the bin it should just be io.

Let those who want to install the io language binary and the iojs binary sort out the conflict.... all 5 of them.

Answer 14 · 2015-01-12T09:03:04.000Z

Windows installers and binaries are being uploaded in the nightlies now but npm doesn't work obviously because there is no node so they are hard to test

Answer 15 · 2015-01-12T11:45:20.000Z

Some native modules do seem to require a node.exe file, so supplying that as a binary would be the only way of maintaining 100% compatiblity.

For the record, adding the files node.cmd and node.exe.cmd containing the single line:

@iojs.exe %*

...seems to work nicely for me in the more general case (i.e. npm works).

Answer 16 · 2015-01-19T04:52:08.000Z

@bnoordhuis can this be closed?