build: fix compile_commands.json generation

[lundibundi]

Checklist

• make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
• commit message follows commit guidelines

/cc @nodejs/build-files @nodejs/automation

[rvagg]

@nodejs/python for review and @nodejs/gyp FYI

aaaand we're back to the question of where to maintain gyp, maybe it's time to make that new repo since we're nearly at the point of having nodejs/node and nodejs/node-gyp synchronized. I think a blocker was coming up with a new name for it that's different enough from "gyp" that we don't cause copyright problems. I don't want to block this issue but we're going to get out of sync pretty quick again if we don't have a strategy for this.

Ping @MylesBorins @mcollina @Trott since you were involved in the last email thread I can find about this. "gyp-next" was a suggestion and maybe we just do that. Also @targos since you've been ding sync work on this.

[bnoordhuis]

LGTM

@rvagg Tangential: I created https://github.com/libuv/gyp recently with a stripped down gyp that contains just enough to build libuv (and, presumably, node, although I didn't test that.)

Libuv is dropping GYP support so it's superfluous for us but I could move it to github.com/nodejs.

[targos]

@ryzokuken and @cclauss also created a fork: https://github.com/ryzokuken/gyp

[MylesBorins]

gyp-next still seems reasonable to me.

…

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 10:25 AM Christian Clauss ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** approved this pull request. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#32090?email_source=notifications&email_token=AADZYV7V4KEZSGPGBLG4RB3RGEIWJA5CNFSM4LBKXF2KYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFWFIHK3DMKJSXC5LFON2FEZLWNFSXPKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOCYJ7GUQ#pullrequestreview-370406226>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADZYV5VT4G4ZBYJU44NKZTRGEIWJANCNFSM4LBKXF2A> .

[ryzokuken]

https://github.com/ryzokuken/gyp was supposed to be a single source of truth codebase which could be the point where deps/gyp and node-gyp converged and @cclauss made some extra improvements like adding tests. I'm completely happy with to transfer the repo to the org and renaming it gyp-next or anything else that comes to mind.

[rvagg]

@ryzokuken is it going to be compatible with the sync that was recently merged in node-gyp? nodejs/node-gyp#1975

I'm happy to see that move forward and if there are no disagreements with 'gyp-next' then let's just do that, I'm not seeing any better proposals for how to maintain gyp or naming. Maybe just go ahead and jump through the hoops of transferring the repo over at nodejs/admin or whatever is needed these days to get one in?

[ryzokuken]

@ryzokuken is it going to be compatible with the sync that was recently merged in node-gyp? nodejs/node-gyp#1975

IIRC, @targos already backported those changes. If anything remains, I see no reason who it shouldn't be "upstreamed".

Regarding the name, I'm sure we can come up with something more clever, but that'll probably take a while (all I could come up with was Sisyphus, because of the issues and controversies surrounding it) but I'm fine with renaming to gyp-next and considering a new name only if we come up with a pretty good one, later on.

I'll start chipping away at this.

[targos]

@lundibundi can you please open a PR at https://github.com/nodejs/gyp-next ?

[lundibundi]

Done nodejs/gyp-next#22.

Closing this as I assume this would get pulled in the next gyp-next update.