Hi all, John Altobelli wrote:
> For the past week I've been working on a branch of nixpkgs that moves > the packages into an file hierarchy modeled after the Gentoo portage > system (http://gentoo-portage.com/Browse). I have since completed the > reorganization and would like to get the opinions of the developers > here about whether they like this new hierarchy and whether it would > be worth moving into mainline. My thoughts on this: I don't think that a 2-level structure like Gentoo buys us anything. In the Gentoo scheme, names such as media-libs, dev-libs, sys-libs, etc. reveal the limitations of a 2-level structure: it would IMHO be more appropriate to name these libs/media, libs/dev, libs/sys and so on. However, there are currently a number of directories in Nixpkgs that are very large, in particular development/libraries which has >= 256 packages in it. These should definitely be refactored, e.g. libraries/media, libraries/sys, libraries/net etc. Another issue is that right now there is a lot of stuff in the pkgs directory which aren't actually packages :-) Namely, pkgs/lib, pkgs/stdenv, pkgs/build-support and pkgs/top-level. I would propose moving these one level up in the tree so that pkgs only contains Nix expressions for actual packages. And another issue: we should have a standard policy for the naming of packages with multiple versions. For some packages, we have a directory per version (e.g. development/libraries/glibc-{2.7,2.9,...} or development/compilers/gcc-{4.2,4.3,...}). It's cleaner to put the versions together in one directory, like development/libraries/glibc/2.7 and development/libraries/glibc/2.9. -- Eelco Dolstra | http://www.st.ewi.tudelft.nl/~dolstra/ _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
