I think you should just go ahead and create a PR which replaces the current npm2nix with yours and removes the currently imported nodejs nix packages - last time I checked they were all like at least 1 major version behind anyway.
After this "cut" no libraries, only nodejs cli programs should be imported as needed. Discussion can continue on the PR. Sent from my iPhone > On 07 Jul 2016, at 23:11, Sander van der Burg <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well, for me personally it does not matter that much. > > So far, I have only seen one +1 vote for making my version the new npm2nix. > However, not so long ago, I noticed that there was another incoming pull > request for the vanilla npm2nix. Perhaps the person who filed it, did not > know about the existence of the reengineering2 branch or this discussion > thread. :) > > Anyway, the reason why I still haven't integrated anything yet, is this > issue: https://github.com/svanderburg/npm2nix/issues/7 > > When using the master Nixpkgs branch, it seems that npm2nix no longer > computes the sha256 hashes for the git checkouts correctly. Apparently, some > change in the fetchgit {} infrastructure (or a dependency thereof) causes > this, but I don't know why. When using the latest stable branch of Nixpkgs > (release-16.03) everything seems to work just fine. > > I guess this issue needs to be resolved first. IMO it's a bit useless to have > NPM packages set in Nixpkgs with broken Git dependencies, even though the > master Nixpkgs should not be considered stable. > > Besides npm2nix, other generators are affected as well -- bower2nix also > seems to break in one of my use cases. I haven't checked any other lang2nix > generators though :( > > >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Rok Garbas <[email protected]> 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 <[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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
