Re-vendor node/node-gyp --> tools/gyp/

[cclauss]

As discussed at #28537 (comment), in order to keep advancing towards Python 3 compatibility, we should re-vendor the repo node/node-gyp --> this repo's tools/gyp/ directory.

What is the best approach for vendoring in?

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Please describe the problem you are trying to solve.
Node.js does not yet build on Python 3 and Python 2 EOL is in < 6 months.

Describe the solution you'd like
Please describe the desired behavior.
Node.js builds on Python 3.

Describe alternatives you've considered
Please describe alternative solutions or features you have considered.
Going kitesurfing.

[sam-github]

I'm not involved in gyp maintenance, so no comment on whether we should do this (though python3 support is clearly something we want).

But in terms of how, look at 3a334b1 as an example, expecially of the commit message, and you can just rm -rf tools/gyp; copy new-gyp to tools/gyp; git add --all tools/gyp; git commit tools/gyp and PR it. I suggest the commit message have the shell commands you used be in it, so its clear its a mechanical task (I assume there will be lots of churn).

@nodejs/gyp

[richardlau]

We were (are?) floating patches on top of gyp. I think these have been ported across to node-gyp (nodejs/node-gyp#1518) but it’s something we need to watch out for (e.g. nodejs/node-gyp#1661 had to address one case where the relative directory structure differs between node-gyp and here).

[richardlau]

As discussed at #28537 (comment), in order to keep advancing towards Python 3 compatibility, we should re-vendor the repo node/node-gyp --> this repo's tools/gyp/ directory.

node-gyp !== gyp. We’d only want to vendor the gyp part of the node-gyp repository (in the absence of a more official maintained upstream gyp source).

[cclauss]

This all seems to be done.

nodejs/node-gyp#1791 would still be a huge leap forward.

[sam-github]

@cclauss this doesn't seem to be done at all! Isn't the suggestion that we re-vendor "the gyp part of the node-gyp repository"? I don't think that has happened.

I just opened #28555

[sam-github]

Perhaps we should be vendoring gyp3 in? #26620 would be an attempt at that.