enable corepack by default

[hardfist]

What is the problem this feature will solve?

we try to use corepack and "packageManager" to force developers use the same pnpm version, but developers always forget to enable corepack(because it's turned off by default and when we switch node version it's turned off again) which makes packageManager not working at all

What is the feature you are proposing to solve the problem?

enable corepack by default if package.json contains "packageManager".

What alternatives have you considered?

we currently use "engine.pnpm" field to check whether developers use same pnpm version but engine field is annoying when we deals with tons of projects with different version

[aduh95]

I don't think we can enable Corepack depending on the project, either Corepack pnpm executable is on the PATH, or it's not – so I guess your actual request is "can we enable Corepack by default?".

What I would like to see added to Corepack would be some kind of integrity mecanism so Corepack can safely download newer versions of package managers from the internet (currently, it only relies on HTTPS, which is OK but not great for our use case). This is tracked at nodejs/corepack#10. There has been little to no progress on that issue because it requires coordinate work between Corepack maintainers and package manager maintainers. If we're OK moving forward without it, I don't think there's any blocker for enabling Corepack by default.

Before Corepack is enabled by default, we would need to get consensus on the following:

• Would npm be provided through Corepack moving forward? One of the reasons that Corepack got integrated to the project was so we could uncouple Node.js releases and npm releases, so it's definitly a goal to eventually do that. Is now a good time? I guess that's a judgement call.
• What if more package managers are added to Corepack, would they be enabled by default? E.g.: there's an open PR to add Bun to Corepack: [WIP] Add support for bun corepack#307. (EDIT: no)

/cc @nodejs/corepack @nodejs/tsc

[MylesBorins]

Would npm be provided through Corepack moving forward? The reason that Corepack got integrated to the project was so we could uncouple Node.js releases and npm releases, so it's definitly a goal to eventually do that. Is now a good time? I guess that's a judgement call.

I want to call out that the npm team is still not in support of this. It is not how we want npm to be distributed. We can discuss this more at length if needed, but wanted to call this out.

[anonrig]

I want to call out that the npm team is still not in support of this. It is not how we want npm to be distributed. We can discuss this more at length if needed, but wanted to call this out.

Why does npm not want this?

[anonrig]

Adding tsc-agenda to understand where we are with corepack and progress on it.

[MylesBorins]

TL;DR I support unflagging corepack and any package manager that wants to integrate. npm does not wish to integrate for a variety of reasons and we don't want to be forced into supporting this pattern.

I wouldn't block any work to enable corepack by default in Node.js for other package managers, but I do object to it being used for npm, and for any sort of npm support being on by default. My request would be that if corepack is enabled by default that npm support remain behind an additional flag or command that would be opt-in for developers. If developers want a flow that includes corepack I personally think they should choose a different package manager developed and designed to use this pattern such as yarn. This is the beauty of having an ecosystem of tools, and I don't think that npm should be forced to use a pattern it is not designed to utilize.

For the default npm use case I view using corepack to be a regression in a variety of ways. This could be improved over time but would require investment from the npm team that we are not willing to make as we have other priorities we need to focus on.

A couple of the issues I have with corepack when it comes to npm include:

• The jumper pattern

The introduces extra indirection / lack of clarity as to what version of the package manager is being used and where on disk it is if you need to debug or review source. It also introduces extra potential error cases / edge cases as you are consuming a package manager in a way it was not designed to be used. Perhaps for yarn, which is being developed with corepack in mind, this is fine... but for npm it is being designed / developed with the assumption that it lives on disk in a certain location.

This introduces an extra support burden to our team when things don't work as expected and also introduces new "heisenbugs". My preference is that we explicitly don't support this pattern nor enable it by default and by association explicitly don't support problems developers would have with it.

• pinning the package manager at a project level can lead to exposure to security vulnerability

While it is true that we pin the package manager within a version of Node.js, we do security updates to Node.js when the embedded version of npm is known to have security vulnerabilities. We extensively test to ensure there are no regressions and publish updates. With the pattern of corepack projects that opt to lock to a specific version of the package manager do not get updates even if the version in Node.js, or the default version in Corepack, updates. This is not too different from how a package-lock works, but there exists no ecosystem tooling today to warn developers when their pinned package manager is vulnerable (e.g. dependabot). This is imho a regression in security posture. We do significant work to guarantee consistency with npm moving forward and in general want people on the latest version ASAP, pinning the package manager in the project is an anti-pattern in this scenario.

• Lack of clear testing of node + package manager version to update package manager versions

Currently with the embedded version of npm there are a variety of tests, including CITGM, which test the version of npm that ships with Node.js. Corepack decouples this by updating the package managers internally and then updating the version of corepack in Node.js. We can develop process around this to ensure that it is as robust as what we do today, but to the best of my knowledge this hasn't been done yet.

• A hard coded version for package managers in Corepack adding additional labor to updating

First off, I recognize this is a bit of double speak... I point out the challenge in inconsistent versioning while also claiming pinned versions to be a problem. As a meta point I think this is part of the problem with Corepack for npm, it introduces a bunch of complexity and inconsistency w/o significantly improving the status quo.

Currently core pack has npm 10.2.3 hard coded in it's config. This arguably undermines one of the biggest benefits that was originally claimed for corepack when it shipped, which was that the updating of package managers would be decouple from core. This adds an extra step where we need to update the package managers independently in corepack and then update corepack in Node.js. This is an additional step and additional work for our team and the Node.js team to maintain. This also couple the update of a package manager, with the update of other package managers and corepack itself. The most recent update PR has been open for over a month without review.

• Must dynamically install the package manager over the network to get started

If we were to "unship" Node.js and only ship Corepack we would require dynamically fetching npm over the network in order to get started. Any project that has a pinned version of npm w/o that version being cached also needs to fetch something over the network to get started. Not only does this create additional friction in developer workflow it introduces an extra place for a MITM attack in which the package manager could be replaced with something compromised.

• Lack of clear benefit to npm while creating additional work

In summary I see a whole bunch of additional complexity to using npm, to maintaining npm in core, and additional work for the npm to support corepack without significant benefit to the overall npm experience. Arguably it offers a worse experience for npm developers based on the way in which the npm team has designed npm to work. Once again I want to call out that if other package managers are designing and developing their package managers to deeply integrate and work with corepack, that's awesome! For npm this does not align with our design philosphy and enabling it by default would be going against the wishes of the team.

[aduh95]

Currently core pack has npm 10.2.3 hard coded in it's config. This arguably undermines one of the biggest benefits that was originally claimed for corepack when it shipped, which was that the updating of package managers would be decouple from core.

One that point, since nodejs/corepack#134 has landed, the pinned version hardly matters (it's only used if COREPACK_DEFAULT_TO_LATEST env variable is set to 0).

[trivikr]

There are multiple data points from the community in nodejs/corepack#104 to make corepack stable.

[MylesBorins]

I was doing some searching to see about the use of corepack and npm and came across this on twitter from just 10 days ago

I'm not trying to say that this couldn't be fixed, but it is an example of a support edge case the npm team does not want to have to manage.

[merceyz]

I'm not trying to say that this couldn't be fixed

That should be fixed already; nodejs/corepack#276.

[mcollina]

My 2 cents is that corepack simplify the life of most developers that prefer to use yarn or pnpm.

I also think there is value in shipping the reference implementation within Node.js (npm).

Last but not least, most devs do not specify their packageManager field, making reproducible build harder when used in Dockerfiles and build steps. This poses a long term danger, mostly because in a few years the newer versions might not be compatible anymore.

[aduh95]

• Lack of clear testing of node + package manager version to update package manager versions

This argument feels a bit shallow when the npm binary itself asks user to update their local version:

> corepack npm@8 install
added …
…
npm notice 
npm notice New major version of npm available! 8.18.0 -> 10.2.5
npm notice Changelog: https://github.com/npm/cli/releases/tag/v10.2.5
npm notice Run npm install -g [email protected] to update!
npm notice 

And AFAIK npm install -g npm is susceptible to the same MITM attacks as Corepack – except that users can (should) specify a hash in their package.json to ensure the archive they download correspond to what they expect.

[mcollina]

And AFAIK npm install -g npm is susceptible to the same MITM attacks as Corepack – except that users can (should) specify a hash in their package.json to ensure the archive they download correspond to what they expect.

How? There is no hash for the actual archive.

[aduh95]

And AFAIK npm install -g npm is susceptible to the same MITM attacks as Corepack – except that users can (should) specify a hash in their package.json to ensure the archive they download correspond to what they expect.

How? There is no hash for the actual archive.

Not sure what you mean, I’m talking about a hash for the actual archive: when using Corepack it is recommended to specify the hash alongside the version. When you use corepack use npm@latest or corepack up, it stores the hash in your package.json so the next time a coworker pulls the latest change, they can be sure they downloaded the same archive as you. So obviously it doesn’t prevent all MITM, but it’s a mitigation (same as the hashes in a lockfile does).

[mcollina]

Ah, I've learned something. That's not how I've seen folks use this.

[aduh95]

Watching the TSC meeting recording, here are the scenarii that have been mentionned:

1. Status quo:
   • Keep npm as is
   • Keep corepack as is (so you can use corepack enable pnpm to get a pnpm binary)
2. Corepack all the way
   • We no longer bundle npm (by default)
   • We keep corepack and we enable jumper binaries for e.g. npm, pnpm, and yarn¹ by default (if more package managers are added to Corepack, they are not enabled by default without a discussion in nodejs/node).
3. npm + Corepack for the others:
   • Keep npm as is
   • We keep corepack and we enable jumper binaries for pnpm and yarn¹ by default (if more package managers are added to Corepack, they are not enabled by default without a discussion in nodejs/node).
4. npm only?
   • Keep npm as is
   • Remove Corepack?
5. Corepack only?
   • Remove npm?
   • We keep corepack and we enable jumper binaries for pnpm and yarn¹ by default (if more package managers are added to Corepack, they are not enabled by default without a discussion in nodejs/node).

Here are the upsides/downsides I can think of:

1. status quo

2. Upsides:

   • It solves the unfair advantage npm has in comparison other package managers
   • It decouples the npm releases from the Node.js releases, so a security issue in npm no longer affects Node.js

   Downsides:

   • Myles (from npm) has raised concerned against it
     -Ruy mentioned there might be license issues (not sure if I heard it right, the sound in the recording was not great).
   • Matteo mentioned that folks using Docker might find surprising that the npm version is longer fixed for a specific Node.js version (this can be worked around, but we have to think how to minimize the potential breakage)

3. Upsides:

   • Minimize potential breakage
   • While npm maintains a special status, it has less of an unfair advantage as users can easily pick another one.

   Downsides:

   • npm security issues are still affecting Node.js.

4. Not sure if anyone was seriously suggesting that. If you are, please argue for it. FWIW, the TSC voted back in 2021 on something related, the options were "Add corepack", "Add yarn", or "Leave things as is". "Add corepack" was the winning proposition.

5. Same.

I think ideally I would go with 2., as it seems to be the fairest to me, and I tend to think the breakage would be manageable – in fact, it would probably be transparent to most folks.
I think 3. is the most likely to get consensus. I consider the other options as unreasonable.

I'm happy to hear divergent opinions, or to be corrected if I missed something :)

Footnotes

1. I'm suggesting PNPM and Yarn because those are the current options that corepack enable provides. IMO it makes sense to limit that to a defined list to not gatekeep adding more package managers to Corepack without affecting the default installation of Node.js (where we probably want to be more picky). ↩ ↩² ↩³

[GeoffreyBooth]

I think ideally I would go with 2., as it seems to be the fairest to me, and I tend to think the breakage would be manageable – in fact, it would probably be transparent to most folks.

Can you describe what this option would look like to end users? Both for someone installing Node fresh on a new machine as well as someone upgrading from Node 21. For example, what would they see after installation when they run npm install? Would there be some process to guide them through installing npm or another package manager?

Tangentially related, we should consider whether we want to keep bundling Yarn 1 in our Docker image:

docker run -it --entrypoint bash node:latest
root@442124a0a098:/# node -v
v21.5.0
root@442124a0a098:/# npm -v
10.2.4
root@442124a0a098:/# yarn -v
1.22.19
root@442124a0a098:/# pnpm -v
bash: pnpm: command not found

[meyfa]

Tangentially related, we should consider whether we want to keep bundling Yarn 1 in our Docker image

Thank you for considering Docker users as well. I think, when making a decision about corepack, it's important to take into account all official ways in which Node.js is delivered to users. Otherwise this may lead to fragmentation/different behavior.

Regarding Yarn in the Docker image, there are many related issues/PRs on the docker-node repo, most recently this one (which also has links to other ones): nodejs/docker-node#1979

[aduh95]

For example, what would they see after installation when they run npm install?

Assuming they run the command on a folder with a package.json, they would see something like added xxx packages, removed xxx packages, changed xxx packages, and audited xxx packages in xxxs and then likely a long list of packages with security vulnerabilities (the npm audit thingy). That's what I meant by "transparent to most folks", most folks won't know or care that npm is served through Corepack or not.
You can already try it by running corepack npm install on your projects, most likely you won't see any difference.

Corepack jumper binaries will look into the package.json for "packageManager" field and if present use the version define there, otherwise it will download the latest from the internet (unless a environment variable forbids it to do so).

[MylesBorins]

As was raised earlier I think there are two distinct, but related, conversations happening here, and I'd like to advocate for splitting the discussion.

1. Should we enable corepack by default
2. Should we unbundle npm

When Corepack was originally created it was to unblock objections to adding yarn to Node.js, and the eventual vote to include corepack over adding yarn was explicitly framed to not make a decision regarding the bundling of npm. This specific conversation has been opened to discuss unflagging Corepack, and if that is all we plan to do I have no objections.

I strongly believe that we should improve access to the top CLI clients, but I also strongly believe that we shouldn't force specific clients into using Corepack. If the decision to unflag corepack is dependent on a decision regarding unbundling npm, we should reach consensus on that first before pursuing the decision on corepack further. Conflating the two will only make discussion confusing IMHO.

It does not feel in good spirits to expand the scope of this discussion to a much larger and tougher decision regarding unbundling npm, and with the npm team (and myself) having expressed on multiple occasions that we have issues with the technical decisions of Corepack and do not want to be forced to support it, it is dissapointing that it feels we are being forced into making a decision here.

If yarn + pnpm want to use corepack, rather than directly bundling, that should be their perogative to do so. If npm does not want to be shipped with corepack we should have the option to do so. If we want to discuss the potential of Node.js unbundling npm, making corepack the only option to being distributed with node.js for npm, this should happen on it's own merits as a separate discussion.

As the discussion is happening here I will respond to it here, but I do want to advocate strongly that we separate the two discussions. If those advocating for the inclusion of corepack do not support unflagging it if npm is not enabled by default / unbundled then I think we should block a decision here until we discuss the larger matter of unbundling npm.

@anonrig mentioned 2 primary reasons for unbundling npm in the recent TSC call. The appearance of a competitive advantage for npm, and bundle size. I'd like to speak to those.

1. npm gets a competitive advantage

I want to advocate clearly for the inclusion of both yarn + pnpm in the source tree of Node.js. They should be bundled and included in the way that is most preferred by those teams. While I personally think using corepack is a mistake, and can get into the specifics if desired, I also don't think it is my place to tell other projects how to distribute their source. If corepack is the way those teams prefer it then that's how it should be done. When a developer installs Node.js on their machine they should be able to run yarn and pnpm and have it just work... both of these clients have proven a level of adoption and usage to justify their inclusion.

This could start to get into a slippery slope argument regarding what does / does not get bundled in Node.js. I think we can agree on some fairly reasonable guidelines and the npm team is willing to share metrics to help make a data informed decision. Currently market share based on requests to npm is:

• npm: 64.8%
• yarn: 25.62%
• pnpm: 8.52%

The remaining 1.05% are almost entirely from npm-registry-fetch and pacote... two internals of npm used by other clients like lerna.

If we look at semver major usage the top 10 clients are:

• yarn 1
• npm 8
• npm 10
• npm 9
• npm 6
• pnpm 8
• pnpm 7
• npm 7
• npm-registry-fetch 14
• pnpm 6

Yarn 1 is responsible for close to 25% of all registry traffic by itself and has been the number client for years. Clearly it has accomplished this despite not being the default Node.js client.

I 100% support anything we can do to make client access easier, to reduce steps to getting started, to making the experience better, and to levelling the playing field. I do not support forcing the adoption of corepack to teams that do not want to use it

2. Reducing the bundle size

I would like to challenge that reducing bundle size is a core value or even goal of the Node.js project at this time comparing Node.js 16 vs 18 vs 20 vs 22 we can see the distribution size continuing to grow over time with version 16 coming at 98.4 MB and version 21 coming in at 163.9 MB of which npm is ~10mb and corepack is ~2.4 MB. Could we optimize this, sure, but this seems like a micro-optimization that results in a poorer developer experience.

There is no strategic initative focusing on reducing bundle size.

Bundle size also doesn't come up in the Technical Values of the project, but #1 is developer experience and #2 is stability

IMHO bundle size is not a reasonable technical argument to unbundle based on the current goals and history of the project

---

To summarize one more time

• Let's ship pnpm + yarn in the way they want to be consumed
  • Let's unflag corepack if that is the way to do it
• Please don't force npm to use corepack
• Please separate the discussion if you want to dig in to unbundled npm

[aduh95]

I don't think vendoring Yarn and PNPM into Node.js like npm is is a realistic option (more security issues, more bundle size, and would likely not fit well with our LTS policy).

I also don't think it would make much sense to discuss unbundling npm because of the ecosystem impact. If the Release Team wants that to happen (I think they are the ones who are the more likely to be affected by that decision), we could discuss it, but that doesn't seem very productive to go this route. (It'd be like Node.js and npm calling each other bluff until one project caves, or everyone loses).

That being said, we can certainly go the 3. road (which is the most likely to get consensus it seems), and reconsider at a later time if we feel the need to unbundle npm in the future.

[GeoffreyBooth]

the npm team (and myself) having expressed on multiple occasions that we have issues with the technical decisions of Corepack and do not want to be forced to support it

What are the npm team’s concerns with Corepack? (A link is fine; my apologies for not following along with this topic.)

I do like the idea of a package manager being automatically downloaded on first use; that spares us the trouble of needing to bundle it, and also means that we don’t need to take responsibility for the package manager’s security issues. If there’s some way to achieve this that the npm team is happy with, that would seem like a win for both sides. (Even better if it’s a solution that Yarn and pnpm are also on board with.) If Corepack’s current design doesn’t work, is there an alternative design that could?

Edit: I assume the objections are here? #50963 (comment)

[NathanJAdams]

Another vote to unbundle npm from node. Bundling is almost never a good idea for several reasons:

• It makes it easy to allow changes that muddy the separation between the two
• Assumptions about how the other piece of software works get made on both sides
• It adds confusion for a new developer over where the bundled software has come from and the difference between the two
• It's unintuitive for the experienced developer if they install software X and software Y magically appears
• Often the bundled software isn't used or even wanted, at run time for example
• Releases get delayed or versions get tied together, if the bundled software gets upgraded, it has to wait for the bundling software to be upgraded before it goes out, meaning developers get old versions by default and have to upgrade anyway

It's surprising that bundling even more software (via Corepack) is being suggested, IMHO that's going in the wrong direction. In Java land, it would be like the JRE first being bundled with Maven, then it being suggested that it also gets bundled with Ant and Gradle as well. A runtime and a package manager are two different things that do two different jobs - they should be treated as such.

[ronag]

This is quite a long thread now. Can some summarise the current technical objections to enable corepack by default? @aduh95 @GeoffreyBooth? Is it mainly the security parts atm?

[frankli0324]

me vote for having npm not bundled, but here's another perspective:
modern langs ships with entire toolchains:

rust: rust is installed with rustup, rustup installs cargo (package manager, which is also responsible for orchestrating a build)
python: ships with ensurepip package, which is an offline package that bundles pip in it
dotnet: single command that includes package management and build
go: the go command itself includes build, get, install etc. like dotnet
many others...

I find myself rarely used the npm package manager, instead for something like building minimal images. But though I vote for having corepack managing npm for it's cleaness, there're a perspective where many modern languages maybe, yes, violates the unix philosophy, yet still they're there... and having npm not bundled would break things that assumes that npm is shiped with node

[trivikr]

For anyone visiting this issue, the status as of 2024-04-26 is an Open TSC Vote tracked at nodejs/TSC#1527

[joebowbeer]

Instead of removing npm/npx, which I think would be a disservice,
why not add pnpm to the (growing?) npm+yarn collection?

oops nm. came here from a link in a pnpm discussion...

[RedYetiDev]

That's not the point of this discussion, and regardless, corepark already supports pnpm

[moonmeister]

I landed here after fighting package-lock.json issues all day. There were two things causing issues. Bugs in npm and not all our developers using the same version of npm.

Both these issues and more could be avoided by npm respecting packageManager I'm not sure what @MylesBorins is defining as npm "supporting" or "using" corepack. But it not respecting the packageManager field is a major pain.

It does not feel in good spirits to expand the scope of this discussion to a much larger and tougher decision regarding unbundling npm, and with the npm team (and myself) having expressed on multiple occasions that we have issues with the technical decisions of corepack and do not want to be forced to support it, it is dissapointing that it feels we are being forced into making a decision here.

I think it'd be a major step forward if corepack was enabled by default and npm would fail to run if I have another PM defined in packageManager. No, I don't think "engines" is a good alternative. It requires me to explicitly tell it to use an outdated version of npm. This is confusing and misleading to anyone happening across the error. packageManager solves this by giving a clear error that you on the wrong PM or version of a PM.

If I'm using npm engines works well enough for npm, but also has the issue of yarn or pnpm not stopping them selves unless explicitly blocked with a non-existent version configured in engines.

If npm at least would fail to run when not specified in packageManager, then bundling of npm would be much less of an issue. Users defaulting to the installed npm would get errors instead of submitting PRs with added package-lock.json files when the project users yarn or pnpm. To me the biggest benefit of corepack is creating a common language all package mangers can use to decide whether they should be used on this project, and enforce that. The installation/delivery is a great benefit but not required.

UPDATE: just realized engines-strict also is required for engines config to be respected by npm this seems like a dual use of the engines field. 1. to restrict the use of npm. 2. to restrict the installation of packages not explicitly supported. While the --force flag is an option it means if I want 1 but not 2 this is not a solution. using packageManager for PMs and engines for package installation seems like a great solution that correctly separates concerns.

Thanks for reading!

P.S Maybe @MylesBorins or someone else can clarify the relationship between npm and node? I get it's the default (I'm not new to the ecosystem), but is npm not owned by a for-profit company? Microsoft>GitHub>NPM? While I understand the npm team have legitimate technical concerns; its hard not to read the objections as a for-profit company wining about supporting the technical needs of an open-source community that is asking it to comply with the new norm and potentially give up marketshare and profits in the process.

[elektronik2k5]

I think it'd be a major step forward if corepack was enabled by default and npm would fail to run if I have another PM defined in packageManager. No, I don't think "engines" is a good alternative. It requires me to explicitly tell it to use an outdated version of npm. This is confusing and misleading to anyone happening across the error. packageManager solves this by giving a clear error that you on the wrong PM or version of a PM.

@moonmeister I'm sorry about your troubles with npm. I share the same sentiment: npm is terrible and we should have better alternatives on a fair playing field.

As to your specific challenge: it can be enforced today, using the engines field along with an .npmrc file in the project. Here's how: https://x.com/elektronik2k5/status/1223240189016858624

I wish we had a hacks free and portable solution which all package managers support.

[RedYetiDev]

Hey, this is an issue for the enabling of Corepack. Please direct npm specific concerns to their repo, as these comments are off-topic.

[MylesBorins]

Fwiw I am no longer employed by GitHub, nor do I work for npm.

I continue to believe that npm should remain bundled. I similarly believe that yarn + pnpm should be directly bundled rather than supporting via corepack

I continue to believe that the npm team should not be forced to support corepack. This isn't about corporations whining about support, which is a fairly pessimistic view point, but rather architectural decisions that are not aligned with the project.

I have objected to the use of the jumper pattern from the initial release of corepack and abstained from any voting around the project and significantly restrained my criticism to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Now that I am without conflict of interest, and no longer a maintainer of node, let me reiterate my stance

I think corepack is net negative for the ecosystem for a number of reasons:

1. The jumper pattern
2. Fetching resources from cloud storage maintained by individuals
3. Introducing additional dynamic fetches of resources for both local + CI/CD pipelines

But I also think that it should be the decision of the maintainers of the various package managers to decide what their official installation process looks like. If yarn + pmpm want to make those decisions, it's up to them. It really doesn't matter if I disagree. BUT, I think it would be a significant overstep to force npm to adopt these behaviors for the same reason.

Falling back on "corporations bad" is super dehumanizing to the large group of people who care big time about the community and the software they deliver. Questioning their integrity because you disagree with their technical decisions is super gross.

[leobalter]

As the current PM of npm I'd like to reiterate the reiteration from @MylesBorins (recursive ftw).

I believe this issue was already settled, and there isn't much I can add, nothing that sounds as new.

I'm welcome the idea to expand node being bundled with more cli, I believe that resolves most of the paint points here. I hope the resolution is not attached to just one solution and better options can be explored.