On 02/21/2016 03:17 PM, zimbatm wrote: > tl,td; I think that we should split nixpkgs/pkgs in two
OK, let's discuss. TL;DR: I quite don't get where to draw the line, and what the relationship of the two sets would be. > nixpkgs is getting pretty huge. There is so much surface, [...] > > We have a list of officially-supported packages (the ones built by > hydra). As a user, when installing a package it's not always clear if > the package is supported or not. > As a nixpkgs maintainer it is also unclear what priority should be given > to each package as the of officially-supported packages is not first > class. For example gettext is used everywhere but not directly part of > release.nix I think most packages actually are built on Hydra, and we encourage new ones to set meta.platforms, as otherwise the state tends to rot. (Of course, only a limited set of configurations and platforms is built.) Importance of a package seems a rather subjective matter. Still, it shouldn't be hard to distinguish a set of packages that happen to be present in a large fraction of build-time closures. (That's close to "the" set of mass-rebuild packages with some additional ones, e.g. xorg-server.) Assuming we did decide on what package to put where, what then? Do you mean that support for the less important part would be allowed to lag behind? E.g. heavy-impact changes would only be well-tested on the more important part before merging, and the community might take care of the rest later without blocking channels etc.? --Vladimir
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
