Great job Sander!
Some thoughts:
- Node 5 layout is Node 4 compatible, so why not use only that?
- You can symlink the first level of modules instead of the modules
themselves to avoid the commonjs derefence thing. So a combination of
modules becomes a shallow copy.
- npm2nix
Thanks Sander for trying again!
As a data point: We've had too many issues with integrating NPM and nix
more tightly so we've given up and run [1] in combination with shrink-wrap.
I think there may be value in pushing the "resolved" fields from the
npm-shrinkwrap.json file into nix but trying to
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Sander van der Burg
wrote:
> So as you may see: it is all quite annoying and painful. :(
>
I'm starting to think that it's pointless to try to make it all work
automatically. At some point it's so compatible with npm that it replicates
all
As long as it's more reliable than what we have right now I'm all for it.
First we need reliable, then optimize closure size.
On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 at 14:42 Sander van der Burg
wrote:
> Haha :)
>
> Well, I have been thinking about keeping the packages and all their
>
Haha :)
Well, I have been thinking about keeping the packages and all their
dependencies in their own store directories as well, but I eventually came
to the conclusion that it is impossible if you want to support the
inclusion of dependencies residing in any of the parent node_modules/
folders.
Hmm, OK. I still don't see why each package shouldn't live in its
own store dir (perhaps without dependencies linked in), but whatever, I
don't use node anymore :D
On 2016-03-01 09:12, Sander van der Burg
wrote:
> It's stateful because the packages that end up in a
dependency's
It's stateful because the packages that end up in a dependency's
node_modules/ folder depend on the packages that have been stored in any of
the includer's (parent directory's) node_modules/ folders. When a
dependency has been encountered a second time (that fits within a package's
version range),
"including NPM dependencies is stateful" how so? Having separate
derivations symlinked in would give you sharing, no?
On 2016-03-01 08:15, Sander van der Burg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't know how many of you have noticed my latest blog post
>
>