On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 10:52:10AM +0000, Marc Weber wrote: > Thus eventually its time to think about which information could be > shared. Who would join a "software version documentation" project > allowing people to upload "the most recent version of my software is X, > and it requires Z, FOO, BAR" ?
Lots of people. Lots of languages do this already. People don't have a problem with adding gemfiles, pom.xmls, rebar.configs, package.jsons and so on in their code repos (along with the more traditional autotools). I would certainly be keen to see a switch from a central nixpkgs repo to a system whereby the nix expression comes with the package itself. Yes, lots of details to figure out there, but I think it's preferable for a number of reasons. Then, obviously, there are central servers where this data is held. The interesting thing about the language-specific packaging is that it makes assumptions that the only thing you're allowed to specified is other items within the language eco-system. The language platform/RTS is your only interface with the computer, so, for example, you don't see a rebar.config demanding a particular version of libfoobarbaz (though there's inevitably some bleed when you get to FFIs). I'm guessing that the mechanical "let's attempt to translate $language-specific-deps-file into nix" has been tried and found wanting? I can see there's the node-packages-generated.nix, and others, but is that approach appropriate to all such languages? Matthew _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev