On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:40:27 +0200, Vladimír Čunát <vcu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 24 July 2012 19:20, Florian Friesdorf <f...@chaoflow.net> wrote: > > I understand the wish for having it in one expression and keep > > duplication low. But I think the expressions should be as simple as > > possible and, as Eelco says, with the possibility to change them > > independently. > > Well, OK, it seems to be the major opinion here, so I'm going to > respect it when writing expressions. > > > > I think generating expressions is a better solution to target > > duplication than having expressions deal with different versions. This > > is already done for at least xorg and haskellPackages. > > But that is exactly what I do... you supply a version and an > expression for the version is returned. > > If we could generate dependencies and options from standard build > systems like autotools, cmake, ... that would really be great. Perhaps > with some amendments because of broken packages, but still it would > save so much code
If I understand correctly you want / are doing something like this: There is a nix expression that when called returns a nix derivation for a specific version of ffmpeg. I would call this ad-hoc generation of derivations using the nix language. I might be mistaken, but I think in a way this is similar to the approach Marc is using in his overlays [1]. A recurring discussion seems to be whether derivations should be generated on the fly like this or whether there should be nix expressions in nixpkgs that have a one-to-one correspondance to derivations. These expressions can also be generated, but that happens prior and independent to running nix, in whatever language desired. I see the following advantages: - generated expressions look very similar to manually created ones making it much easier to understand what is going on - no knowledge needed of the tools used to create the expressions. Instead it is easily possible to change an expression if needed and those knowing the tools can integrate the changes into the tools generating the expressions. AFAIK done like that by Peter and Andres for haskellPackages. - magic, like dependency-resolution, is done outside of nix, keeping the complexity of nix and nixpkgs low. It feels that if we are able to generate derivations, we should do so, but put them into files (nixpkgs) and use these files as the interface between nix and the algorithms that help us to generate the derivations. 1. arbitrary source (hackage, pypi, marmalade, different ffmpeg versions) 2. magic tools (sharing code) to generate expression that declare derivations, in contrast to generating them 3. nixpkgs 4. nix/nixos tools to install these package What do you not like about this approach and in what way do you think generating derivations on the fly is better? regards florian [1] http://nixos.org/wiki/Nix(OS)_related_repositories_and_work -- Florian Friesdorf <f...@chaoflow.net> GPG FPR: 7A13 5EEE 1421 9FC2 108D BAAF 38F8 99A3 0C45 F083 Jabber/XMPP: f...@chaoflow.net IRC: chaoflow on freenode,ircnet,blafasel,OFTC
pgpFl9mKRDr9L.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
