@Luca: Why haproxy is more a tool and sigproxd is more application than tool? ./tools/networking/haproxy ./applications/networking/siproxd Why there is no common networking category? (simple, because most programs match multiple categories)
Same for "groups", why gnome-terminal is more gnome and not more terminal? @Jonn Could you give an example? I'm using nix ~0.5year and not familiar with all internals yet. 2016-01-08 0:15 GMT+00:00 Jonn Mostovoy <[email protected]>: > Your approach holds for applications, but fails for libraries, or rather, > for packages that are part of different ecosystems. > > There are some packages that just can't be taken out of their respective > "contexts" without introducing indirection. > > I agree, however, that "packages in themselves" *can* be flattened, I'm > not sure they should be though. Giving an option for a user to go over > interesting to him parts of nixpkgs over tea, clicking with mouse and > scrolling, learning about what's packaged and what's not might be not worth > taking away. > On Jan 8, 2016 1:04 AM, "Tomasz Czyż" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> After playing for a while with a nixpkgs repo I have impression that >> categories/directories are just waste of time. >> >> * Have to be maintained >> * Harder to find things >> * Lack of any package manager which tells about it >> >> Each time I want to find a package name I do >> * find -name '*name*' >> or use github search to locate files in repo. >> >> From maintaining perspective: >> >> (for x in `ls`; do n=$(ls $x|wc -l);echo "$n - $x";done)|sort -n >> 1 - backup >> 2 - inferno >> 2 - search >> 3 - gis >> 4 - display-managers >> 10 - altcoins >> 11 - science >> 11 - taxes >> 20 - virtualization >> 25 - kde-apps-15.12 >> 27 - office >> 41 - version-management >> 41 - window-managers >> 42 - networking >> 59 - video >> 60 - editors >> 85 - graphics >> 186 - audio >> 224 - misc >> >> Do you see that? It's hard to define all those categories levels, some of >> directories have subdirectories (like applications) other not (servers). >> It's hard to follow. >> Most people know the name of the software, if not, they probably use >> google to find it, not using categories. >> >> Let's make the layout more clear, more accessible and easy to follow. >> >> What do you think about moving all packages into flat namespace? >> >> Let's say you have >> >> pkgs/package1/default.nix >> pkgs/package2/default.nix >> >> or even better: >> >> pkgs/my-package.nix >> pkgs/gcc.nix >> pkgs/gcc-5.0.nix >> >> then, you can autogenerate top-level.pkgs >> >> I'm happy to help implementing that. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nix-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >> >> -- Tomasz Czyż
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
