Summary
The repo has already done meaningful work on published runtime strategy and packaging behavior, but a few related concerns are still showing up in version-to-version CLI reviews.
Rather than reopening packaging/footprint issues one by one, this follow-up groups the remaining concerns into one active maintenance issue.
Included concerns
1. Published runtime footprint
The published CLI package still deserves periodic review for which files and runtime dependencies are truly necessary for shipped execution paths.
2. Packaging metadata hygiene
Build/config artifacts and other package-surface details should continue to be audited so the published package stays intentional rather than historically accumulated.
3. Long-lived process behavior for toolchain metadata
Runtime/toolchain helpers such as version resolution are usually fine for one-shot CLI runs, but long-lived processes can expose different behavior and invalidation expectations.
4. Runtime dependency tradeoffs
Some runtime dependency choices may still be valid, but they should stay visible as intentional tradeoffs instead of fading into the background as accidental defaults.
Scope
- audit the published CLI package footprint and packaging metadata periodically
- review whether runtime dependencies still match the actual supported execution model
- track long-lived-process considerations for toolchain/version metadata helpers
- keep the packaging/runtime story understandable as standalone binaries, Bun paths, and Node paths continue to evolve
Acceptance criteria
- packaging/runtime footprint follow-up work has one active place to accumulate
- runtime dependency and published-file choices remain deliberate and reviewable
- long-lived metadata/toolchain behavior is considered alongside one-shot CLI behavior where relevant
Related context
Summary
The repo has already done meaningful work on published runtime strategy and packaging behavior, but a few related concerns are still showing up in version-to-version CLI reviews.
Rather than reopening packaging/footprint issues one by one, this follow-up groups the remaining concerns into one active maintenance issue.
Included concerns
1. Published runtime footprint
The published CLI package still deserves periodic review for which files and runtime dependencies are truly necessary for shipped execution paths.
2. Packaging metadata hygiene
Build/config artifacts and other package-surface details should continue to be audited so the published package stays intentional rather than historically accumulated.
3. Long-lived process behavior for toolchain metadata
Runtime/toolchain helpers such as version resolution are usually fine for one-shot CLI runs, but long-lived processes can expose different behavior and invalidation expectations.
4. Runtime dependency tradeoffs
Some runtime dependency choices may still be valid, but they should stay visible as intentional tradeoffs instead of fading into the background as accidental defaults.
Scope
Acceptance criteria
Related context