I've found myself confused by multiple projects using the same lang2nix name, and big changes in format. One consistent complaint I have is the top of the file usually says:
// Generated by lang2nix but having more information like a version number and a URL to the project would have saved hours of searching and trying different tools. Something like: // Generated by lang2nix v0.1.0 // See more at https://github.com/myuser/lang2nix would be a really nice usability adjustment. On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 7:36 AM Rok Garbas <r...@garbas.si> wrote: > 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 <tomasz.c...@gmail.com> > 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 <r...@garbas.si>: > >> > >> +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 <tobias.pf...@gmx.net> > >> 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 outdated.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 <svanderb...@gmail.com> > >> > 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 > >> > 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 > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Rok Garbas > >> http://www.garbas.si > >> r...@garbas.si > >> _______________________________________________ > >> nix-dev mailing list > >> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Tomasz Czyż > > > > -- > Rok Garbas > http://www.garbas.si > r...@garbas.si > _______________________________________________ > 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