Re: [Nix-dev] Nixpkgs versioning

2016-03-31 Thread Tomasz Czyż
I think npm is using that as well (https://docs.npmjs.com/files/package.json ). +1 for the idea. 2016-03-29 12:33 GMT+00:00 Arseniy Seroka : > Hi guys. I saw post about guix release and there was introduced a '@' > delimiter in pkg's name to separate version from name.

Re: [Nix-dev] Nixpkgs versioning

2016-03-30 Thread Tomasz Czyż
I would say it maybe doesn't matter for main nix repo and nixpkgs. But when you have your development platform with private packages this can be an issue. I have the situation now where I have one repo with private packages but for different projects I use different versions of the same package.

Re: [Nix-dev] Nixpkgs versioning

2016-03-30 Thread Colin Putney
> On Mar 30, 2016, at 1:55 AM, Jakob Gillich wrote: > > FYI npm also uses @ for this purpose (e.g. npm install foo@1.0). I don't > think I ever had to escape it (?). I don’t know about Guix, but with NPM, version names are much more important than they are with nix. NPM uses

Re: [Nix-dev] Nixpkgs versioning

2016-03-30 Thread Tomasz Czyż
2016-03-30 17:31 GMT+00:00 Vladimír Čunát : > On 03/30/2016 04:42 PM, Tomasz Czyż wrote: > > There is any rule for transforming app name + version to attribute name? > > None AFAIK. And there's a related rule to strive to avoid using multiple > versions and avoid specifying the

Re: [Nix-dev] Nixpkgs versioning

2016-03-30 Thread Vladimír Čunát
On 03/30/2016 04:42 PM, Tomasz Czyż wrote: > There is any rule for transforming app name + version to attribute name? None AFAIK. And there's a related rule to strive to avoid using multiple versions and avoid specifying the version in attribute name at all. --Vladimir smime.p7s Description:

Re: [Nix-dev] Nixpkgs versioning

2016-03-30 Thread Vladimír Čunát
On 03/30/2016 12:02 PM, Peter Simons wrote: > Besides, I thought the universally agreed best way forward was to drop > the notion of installing packages "by name" from the CLI anyway? True, we push towards using attribute names instead. There can be version embedded in attribute names, e.g. we

Re: [Nix-dev] Nixpkgs versioning

2016-03-30 Thread Vladimír Čunát
On 03/30/2016 11:35 AM, Peter Simons wrote: > I thought the universally agreed best way forward was to keep the > version number in a separate $version attribute anyway? That doesn't seem to address disambiguation on the command-line. --Vladimir smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic

Re: [Nix-dev] Nixpkgs versioning

2016-03-30 Thread Peter Simons
I thought the universally agreed best way forward was to keep the version number in a separate $version attribute anyway? Best regards, Peter ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] Nixpkgs versioning

2016-03-30 Thread Vladimír Čunát
On 03/30/2016 10:55 AM, Jakob Gillich wrote: > FYI npm also uses @ for this purpose (e.g. npm install foo@1.0). I don't > think I ever had to escape it (?). Oh, thanks! I'm sorry, I confused it with something else. --Vladimir smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: [Nix-dev] Nixpkgs versioning

2016-03-30 Thread Jakob Gillich
FYI npm also uses @ for this purpose (e.g. npm install foo@1.0). I don't think I ever had to escape it (?). On Wed, Mar 30, 2016, at 10:32 AM, Vladimír Čunát wrote: > On 03/29/2016 02:33 PM, Arseniy Seroka wrote: > > I saw post about guix release and there was introduced a '@' > > delimiter in

Re: [Nix-dev] Nixpkgs versioning

2016-03-30 Thread Vladimír Čunát
On 03/29/2016 02:33 PM, Arseniy Seroka wrote: > I saw post about guix release and there was introduced a '@' > delimiter in pkg's name to separate version from name. Maybe we can use it > in nix too? It seems rather unconventional and currently I can't see enough advantages to convince me