I agree - someone should start a tutorial how new language support is added and the infrastructure should be based on Haskell as it's most advanced and yet simple.
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:47 AM, stewart mackenzie <setor...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Tomasz, > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Tomasz Czyż <tomasz.c...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > do you have any description of what you are exactly talking about? > > Adopting this approach brings a huge amount of flexibility, could be > that this style of structuring can be rolled out for different > languages. Sure there are differences in how languages publish > packages, but it could be Peter's solution is a 80% solution > applicable to most languages. > > This approach might mean if nixers want support for a new language > they could plug into this this rather advanced packaging structure and > hopefully it works out well. Existing supported languages on Nix could > start converging onto this style of packaging. > > The current setup is each language has their own ad hoc solution for > getting packages, these packages are tightly bound. > So in the current setup, callPackage refers to a specific file, > whereas in the haskell setup the callPackage refers to a specific > recursive set of expressions that are self contained. > The package set is a function which produces a package set. This > function takes an argument which produces a package set it should > produce. It's better to let Peter describe it: > https://youtu.be/TDnZsBxqeBM?list=PL_IxoDz1Nq2Y7mIxMZ28mVtjRbbnlVdmy&t=1850 > > (I think) Rok Garbas, has a good question at the end! > > Anyway, I just wanted to raise this subject / see if this is an issue > people are interested in. > _______________________________________________ > nix-dev mailing list > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev