Create a statically linked ELF/PE/Mach-O binary

[ggrossetie]

I think it would be useful to add a binary in the npm package. If we do that, we would be able to execute the Reveal.js converter using npx:

$ npx -p @asciidoctor/reveal.js-converter asciidoctor-revealjs presentation.adoc

If we decide to publish a package with the same name as the command, then the command would be:

$ npx asciidoctor-revealjs presentation.adoc

Of course it would also be possible to install the package with npm:

$ echo {} > package.json        # eliminates warnings, use `npm init` if you prefer
$ npm i @asciidoctor/reveal.js-converter
$ ./node_modules/.bin/asciidoctor-revealjs presentation.adoc

[akosma]

I'm currently using this script (written in TypeScript) to generate the HTML slides (executed using ts-node):

// Drives the creation of the Reveal.js presentation using
// the asciidoctor-reveal.js JavaScript library.
import * as asciidoctorLib from 'asciidoctor.js';
import * as asciidoctorRevealjs from 'asciidoctor-reveal.js';
import * as fs from 'fs';
import * as path from 'path';

// Check that there is a parameter
if (process.argv.length < 3) {
    console.error('build.ts: Missing "filename" parameter. Exiting');
    process.exit(1);
}

// Check that the parameter points to a file that exists
const filename = process.argv[2];
const filepath : string = path.join(__dirname, '..', filename);
if (!fs.existsSync(filepath)) {
    console.error('build.ts: The path "%s" is invalid. Exiting.', filepath);
    process.exit(1);
}

// Drive the transformation from Asciidoc to HTML
const asciidoctor = asciidoctorLib();
asciidoctorRevealjs.register();
const options = {safe: 'safe', backend: 'revealjs'};
asciidoctor.convertFile(filename, options);

[obilodeau]

I think this goal was achived through the merger of #254. The current master branch allows the use of a binary to build slides:

$ $(npm bin)/asciidoctor -r asciidoctor-reveal.js -b revealjs presentation.adoc

There's even a way to do so from PowerShell.

Can I close this?

[obilodeau]

Can I close this?

After discussing with @Mogztter, I understand now what this aims to do. Updated the title of the ticket accordingly. Still aiming to achieve that shortly.

[mojavelinux]

Is the proposed solution different from nexe? If so, which one offers the better solution?

[ggrossetie]

Is that an AsciiDoc link... 🤣
I've never used Nexe so I can't tell... But I found this quick comparison from a Nexe contributor: vercel/pkg#42 (comment)

To be honest, I don't quite understand the key differences... there is also mention of https://github.com/pmq20/node-packer

[mojavelinux]

Is that an AsciiDoc link...

After 3 tries I finally got it right.

I've never used Nexe so I can't tell

It was the first tool I had come across that proposed to do something like this.

This seems to be the conclusion to that issue:

Pkg is without doubt my first choice for binaries and only fallback to Nexe for the specific reasons mentioned above

[mojavelinux]

So to answer my question, basically the same. Hard to say exactly which one is better, but we can't go wrong it seems.

[obilodeau]

pkg seems to generate ARM binaries also. Not that it is an important target architecture right now but one could build a slide deck on a Raspberry Pi 🤓

[mojavelinux]

Plus!

[ggrossetie]

@obilodeau Do you want to give it a try? I might work on it tomorrow unless you want to experiment with pkg and the Asciidoctor CLI 😀

Let me know if you have any questions.

[obilodeau]

I started but I have to go. Should I name the binary asciidoctor-revealjs or asciidoctor-reveal.js I remember you having an opinion on that.

Also, bin/asciidoctor-revealjs already exists and is in Ruby so I'm working with npm/asciidoctor-revealjs now and using bin in package.json to link to it properly. I hope this is ok.

[ggrossetie]

I started but I have to go. Should I name the binary asciidoctor-revealjs or asciidoctor-reveal.js I remember you having an opinion on that.

I prefer asciidoctor-revealjs.
In my opinion, a dot in binary name is somewhat unusual/unexpected.
Please note that you can define one or more names, see: https://github.com/asciidoctor/asciidoctor-cli.js/blob/87574b355a049a7320d79987b5c21d8e1f2495d4/package.json#L16-L17

Also, bin/asciidoctor-revealjs already exists and is in Ruby so I'm working with npm/asciidoctor-revealjs now and using bin in package.json to link to it properly. I hope this is ok.

That's completely fine since it's not mandatory to put this file in a bin directory.
But I think that you must add it to the files field: https://docs.npmjs.com/files/package.json#files

{
  "bin": {
    "asciidoctor-revealjs": "npm/asciidoctor-revealjs",
    "asciidoctor-reveal.js": "npm/asciidoctor-revealjs"
  },
  "files": [
    "npm/asciidoctor-revealjs"
  ],
}

[obilodeau]

Trying to create binaries with pkg I run into a problem:

$ npx pkg -t "node12-linux-x64,node12-macos-x64,node12-win-x64" package.json --out-path dist/
> pkg@4.4.0
> Warning Cannot find module '@asciidoctor/cli' from '/home/olivier/src/asciidoc/asciidoctor-reveal.js/npm'
  /home/olivier/src/asciidoc/asciidoctor-reveal.js/npm/asciidoctor-revealjs
> Warning Cannot find module '@asciidoctor/reveal.js' from '/home/olivier/src/asciidoc/asciidoctor-reveal.js/npm'
  /home/olivier/src/asciidoc/asciidoctor-reveal.js/npm/asciidoctor-revealjs

Thinking about it, it kind of make sense since @asciidoctor/cli is not a dependency of this project and @asciidoctor/reveal.js is the project itself.

However, I tried specifying @asciidoctor/cli as a devDep and it didn't work. I also tried adding this to the package.json:

  "pkg": {
    "scripts": ["dist/main.js", "node_modules/@asciidoctor/**/*.js"]
  }

and it didn't work either. I'm starting to think that pkg doesn't support package names with @ in it.

[obilodeau]

Ok, I got it to work. I needed to create a packages/asciidoctor-revealjs/ just like you have in asciidoctor.js repo so I could specify all deps (including @asciidoctor/reveal.js).

I think I have no other choice than to have a new package.json since the code requires itself. That said, there's a lot of copy and paste involved that I would like to get rid of.

I'll commit the ugly stuff but @Mogztter if you have any suggestion on cleaning it up I'm all ears.

[obilodeau]

Ok, I think I made it better after all. I initially had a copy of the whole Opal generated code that I could remove with:

module.exports = require('@asciidoctor/reveal.js')

(inspired by your code again)

The only thing is the need to maintain two package.json and a slightly longer release process. Comments welcome anyhow if you think it can be simpler. I'll adjust the doc in this PR but later.

[obilodeau]

The above 3 comments should have been on the PR #308. My mistake.