Re: [Nix-dev] break purity

This is a clever optimization. Thank you Oliver. -- aycan > On 22 Apr 2016, at 21:33, Oliver Charles wrote: > > It's certainly possible, because I just did it with Haskell ;) > > https://gist.github.com/ocharles/cbd5d7ce63bb570abb86e655f36435ab > >> On Fri, Apr 22,

Re: [Nix-dev] break purity

You will save me hours of waiting in the future, definitely beer worthy! Much appreciated Oliver! On 23 Apr 2016 02:33, "Oliver Charles" wrote: > It's certainly possible, because I just did it with Haskell ;) > >

Re: [Nix-dev] break purity

It's certainly possible, because I just did it with Haskell ;) https://gist.github.com/ocharles/cbd5d7ce63bb570abb86e655f36435ab On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 7:16 PM stewart mackenzie wrote: > Yeah, I'm not so sure it's possible because one cannot copy from a > precompiled

Re: [Nix-dev] break purity

Yeah, I'm not so sure it's possible because one cannot copy from a precompiled derivation output to a new derivation output, ie copy cross derivation. As these multiple outputs (outputs = [x y z]) are seen as different derivations, this cannot happen right? Have you actually managed to make

Re: [Nix-dev] break purity

Ah, okay, I get your drift, I'll think how to make it succinct and tidy in the code :-) ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] break purity

Well you don't tie the knot in the expression itself. It's more that the pre-existing artefacts are a function input, and a function output: { stdenv, gcc, etc, artefacts ? null }: { preConfigure = "cp ${artefacts}/* .''; outputs = [ "out" "artefacts" ]; } Then you would nix-build to produce

Re: [Nix-dev] break purity

Interesting Oliver, though this sounds like it'll throw a recursive error. I'll investigate! cheers! ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] Python & installation

http://nixos.org/nixpkgs/manual/ should answer all your questions regarding Python :) On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Marc Weber wrote: > The question I have is which is the recommended way to install "scrapy > along with dependencies", the following fixes it by making >

Re: [Nix-dev] break purity

Something I'm experimenting with here is to actually have these intermediate artefacts be explicitly captured. I would use multiple outputs to have both the normal complete binaries, and another output for .o files and the like. Then you can feed this back in to future builds. Does that help?

[Nix-dev] Python & installation

The question I have is which is the recommended way to install "scrapy along with dependencies", the following fixes it by making propagatedUserEnvPkgs equal to propagatedBuildInputs.. is there another way? diff --git a/pkgs/development/python-modules/generic/default.nix

Re: [Nix-dev] Monitoring by default

Thanks for the responses so far! Let me see... - I actually agree with Tomas about naming. I know I wrote "services.monitoring.enable", but I hadn't put a lot of thought into that sentence; "services.monitoring.prometheus" seems like a better namespace. - I'd add battery life to the list of

Re: [Nix-dev] Monitoring by default

That's interesting, however I don't think this should be part of "monitoring" service. I'm using prometheus daily and I'm following its development and I don't think it's stable enough (for example backend/storage changes quite often), and prometheus is far from 1.0 (stable). I don't agree that