Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Published package shouldn't have packageManager or engines fields #15

Open
ivancuric opened this issue Feb 18, 2025 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #16
Open

Published package shouldn't have packageManager or engines fields #15

ivancuric opened this issue Feb 18, 2025 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #16

Comments

@ivancuric
Copy link

ivancuric commented Feb 18, 2025

Using the following in package.json is not advised as it's not a node runtime package. This breaks usage in basically all environments as npm install or pnpm install will fail, for instance on Stackblitz.

	"packageManager": "[email protected]",
	"engines": {
		"node": ">=20",
		"pnpm": ">=9.0.0"
	}
npm WARN EBADENGINE Unsupported engine {
npm WARN EBADENGINE   package: '[email protected]',
npm WARN EBADENGINE   required: { node: '>=20', pnpm: '>=9.0.0' },
npm WARN EBADENGINE   current: { node: 'v18.20.3', npm: '10.2.3' }
npm WARN EBADENGINE }

More info:
nodejs/corepack#485

@thetarnav
Copy link
Member

I think you are right about engines but I think packageManager is fine and it only affects if you use a package manager in the same directory. But I would need to confirm that.

@ivancuric
Copy link
Author

ivancuric commented Feb 22, 2025 via email

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants