Option to use yarn in init wizard
See original GitHub issueA part of eslinter --init
is to install dependencies. At the moment this is always done with npm. Could there be a CLI option to use yarn instead?
The rationale is that in yarn managed projects forcing to run npm i
makes a bit mess and forces to remove package-lock.json
, remove node_modules
and reinstall using yarn
.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 6 years ago
- Comments:21 (21 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
yarn init
Interactively creates or updates a package.json file. yarn init. This command walks you through an interactive session to create a package.json file.
Read more >"yarn init" is not letting me start new project - Stack Overflow
I installed Yarn from the "command prompt" as "run administrator", through the commands "corepack enable". This is what the instructions are on ...
Read more >4 Methods for How to Install Yarn on Windows Server
Installing the Yarn Package Using Scoop. Scoop is another command line package manager and installer for Windows. These steps guide you through ...
Read more >How to Install Yarn on Linux, macOS, and Windows - Hostinger
Open Terminal and connect to your server using SSH. Run the following command to install Yarn: sudo npm install --global yarn. Once the ......
Read more >Getting Started with ESLint - Pluggable JavaScript Linter
npm init @eslint/config. 1. If you want to use a specific shareable config that is hosted on npm, you can use the --config...
Read more >Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start FreeTop Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Top GitHub Comments
Thanks for the issue. This was proposed in https://github.com/eslint/eslint/pull/9023, but the team seemed to be opposed to the change, so I’m going to close this issue. However, feel free to comment here or in the other issue if there’s a factor we missed in the last discussion that would justify reconsidering the proposal.
Yes, I’m closing