we can still keep and old version of npm2nix in nixpkgs for ppl who use it. and also a branch with old code could be created, for people that want pudh bugfixes or develop further (very unlikely).
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Tomasz Czyż <[email protected]> wrote: > Rok, > > what about people who are already using previous solution? Why break their > workflows? > > 2016-07-05 7:36 GMT+01:00 Rok Garbas <[email protected]>: >> >> +1 for just keeping the name npm2nix and bumping up the version. >> >> i'm not using it on any active project, but i'm going to in the near >> future. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Tobias Pflug <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Hi Sander, >> > >> > sorry for my very late response. I'll make this one brief as I am sadly >> > on >> > my phone. >> > >> > I belong to one of those who tried your new npm2nix and in fact am >> > already >> > using it regularly. I am very much in favor of having your >> > re-engineeering2 >> > branch replacing npm2nix as the de-facto node integration tool. >> > >> > I also definitely want to see the current set of auto-generated node >> > packages removed from nix. They are almost exclusively *totally* >> > outdated. >> > >> > Thank you a lot for your continued efforts on this. Working with >> > npm/node is >> > annoying but we are better off with your contributions. >> > >> > cheers, >> > Tobi >> > >> > On 22 Jun 2016, at 20:24, Sander van der Burg <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > Hello Nix and Node.js users, >> > >> > I have been absent for a while in this discussion, but as far as I know >> > the >> > state of the NPM packages in Nixpkgs is still quite bad and despite some >> > discussions on the mailing list we have not really come to any consensus >> > yet. >> > >> > As some of you may know, I have my own re-engineered version of npm2nix >> > that >> > lives in a specific branch in my own personal fork >> > (https://github.com/svanderburg/npm2nix/tree/reengineering2). A few >> > months >> > ago, I did some major efforts in getting npm 3.x's behaviour supported, >> > which I have documented in this blog post: >> > >> > http://sandervanderburg.blogspot.com/2016/02/managing-npm-flat-module-installations.html >> > >> > I have been using this reengineering2 branch for all my public and some >> > of >> > my private projects since the beginning of this year, and for me it >> > seems to >> > work quite well, despite the fact that some of npm 3.x's flat module >> > installation oddities are still not accurately supported yet. >> > >> > I also received a couple of reports from other people claiming that >> > their >> > projects work and even encountered some people saying that it should >> > replace >> > the current npm2nix. :) >> > >> > Obviously, I do not want to claim that my implementation is the perfect >> > solution as it (for example) is much slower than the vanilla npm2nix, >> > and it >> > composes the entire set of dependencies in one derivation as opposed to >> > generating a Nix store path per NPM dependency. (I do this for a very >> > good >> > reason. For more details, please read my blog post). >> > >> > Furthermore, I have also spoken to people that suggested completely >> > different kinds of approaches in getting NPM supported in a Nix >> > environment. >> > >> > Something that I have not done yet is investigating whether this >> > reengineered solution could be a potential replacement for the NPM >> > packages >> > set in Nixpkgs. >> > >> > Today, I have been working on an integration pattern, and the good news >> > is: >> > it seems that I was able to generate Nix expressions for almost all >> > packages >> > that are in pkgs/top-level/node-packages.json. The only exceptions were >> > the >> > node-xmpp-* and bip-* packages, but some of them seem to have broken >> > dependencies, which is not npm2nix's fault. >> > >> > If we would proceed integrating, we have a number of practical >> > implications: >> > >> > - I believe it is desired to have both Node.js 4.x and Node.js 5.x, 6.x >> > supported (I actually need all of them). To support all of these, we >> > need >> > two different sets of generated Nix expressions. The former uses npm 2.x >> > with the classic dependency addressing approach and the latter uses npm >> > 3.x >> > with flat module installations. >> > - I think most library packages should be removed from >> > node-packages.json: >> > as explained in my blog post: how a package gets composed and to which >> > version a range resolve depends on the state of the includer. When >> > somebody >> > wants their own NPM project to be deployed, he should use npm2nix >> > directly >> > on package.json, and not refer to any NPM libraries in Nixpkgs. >> > - Some NPM packages must be overridden to provide native dependencies. >> > The >> > mechanisms that the reengineering2 branch use are different. It would >> > probably take a bit of effort to get these migrated. >> > >> > For example, this is how I override the webdrvr package to provide >> > phantomjs >> > and the Selenium webdriver: >> > >> > {pkgs, system}: >> > >> > let >> > nodePackages = import ./composition-v4.nix { >> > inherit pkgs system; >> > }; >> > in >> > nodePackages // { >> > webdrvr = nodePackages.webdrvr.override (oldAttrs: { >> > buildInputs = oldAttrs.buildInputs ++ [ pkgs.phantomjs ]; >> > >> > preRebuild = '' >> > mkdir $TMPDIR/webdrvr >> > >> > ln -s ${pkgs.fetchurl { >> > url = >> > >> > "https://selenium-release.storage.googleapis.com/2.43/selenium-server-standalone-2.43.1.jar";; >> > sha1 = "ef1b5f8ae9c99332f99ba8794988a1d5b974d27b"; >> > }} $TMPDIR/webdrvr/selenium-server-standalone-2.43.1.jar >> > ln -s ${pkgs.fetchurl { >> > url = >> > >> > "http://chromedriver.storage.googleapis.com/2.10/chromedriver_linux64.zip";; >> > sha1 = "26220f7e43ee3c0d714860db61c4d0ecc9bb3d89"; >> > }} $TMPDIR/webdrvr/chromedriver_linux64.zip >> > >> > ''; >> > }); >> > } >> > >> > >> > Although we have some practical issues, I think none of them would >> > impose a >> > serious problem. >> > >> > Then about npm2nix itself: Obviously, we could say that my version >> > replaces >> > the upstream npm2nix and gets "blessed" into the new "official" version, >> > but >> > I don't know whether everybody likes it. >> > >> > Alternatively, we could be a bit more pragmatic: I stop calling my >> > reengineering2 version npm2nix, I give it a different name and I release >> > it >> > as a different package. This makes it possible for those who want it, to >> > still use the 'vanilla' npm2nix alongside my version. >> > >> > Then in Nixpkgs we can decide to: >> > >> > - to keep npm2nix the default and provide my tool as a package >> > - or to make the reengineering2 version the default, and provide npm2nix >> > as >> > a package >> > - in theory: support both package sets, but this might be a bit overkill >> > :) >> > >> > For those who don't know: although my repository is a fork of npm2nix, >> > the >> > reengineering2 version is basically a rewrite of npm2nix and quite >> > different >> > than the upstream version. It is written in JavaScript (as opposed to >> > CoffeeScript), has a different modular structure and different >> > command-line >> > interface, so that's why I'm very careful in proposing to replace the >> > upstream npm2nix. >> > >> > Moreover, it also does not share any git revision history with the >> > upstream >> > npm2nix. :) >> > >> > As a final note: for those who do not know about this: the >> > reengineering2 >> > tool can already be used outside Nixpkgs and this is what I have been >> > doing >> > for all my projects. The expressions that it generates are based on the >> > principles I have described in this blog post: >> > >> > http://sandervanderburg.blogspot.com/2014/07/managing-private-nix-packages-outside.html >> > >> > My apologies for this very long email, but I'd like to have your >> > feedback >> > and I don't want my preferences to disrupt other people's workflows. >> > >> > What do you think? >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > Sander >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > nix-dev mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > nix-dev mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Rok Garbas >> http://www.garbas.si >> [email protected] >> _______________________________________________ >> nix-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > > > > > -- > Tomasz Czyż -- Rok Garbas http://www.garbas.si [email protected] _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
