On 10/02/2013 07:13 PM, Baptist BENOIST wrote:
As I have "finished" my Qt 5.1.1 packaging, I will make a pull request
on nixpkgs containing the fix (on the current mesa version used, not the
latest) soon. I am also planning to push the fix upstream ;-)
Due to another demand (from Carles Pagès )
That would be great!
Ok, I'll be using camelCase. Thanks all!
2013/10/8 Peter Simons
> Oliver Charles writes:
>
> > I would suggest carrying on with camelCase for Haskell packages for
> > consistency. If we want to use dash naming and be equivalent to
> > Hackage, then I think this should be
Oliver Charles writes:
> I would suggest carrying on with camelCase for Haskell packages for
> consistency. If we want to use dash naming and be equivalent to
> Hackage, then I think this should be done in a single commit.
yes, exactly. When cabal2nix generates the 'buildDepends' field for a
p
Hi,
On 08/10/13 11:37, Pascal Wittmann wrote:
> On 10/08/2013 11:24 AM, Daniel Hlynskyi wrote:
>> Hello. There is a convention to convert haskell packages names to camelCase
>> when they contain dashes. But Nix now can dashes.
>> So what convention should I use when submitting new haskell package
On 10/08/2013 10:37 AM, Pascal Wittmann wrote:> On 10/08/2013 11:24 AM,
Daniel Hlynskyi wrote:
>> Hello. There is a convention to convert haskell packages names to
camelCase
>> when they contain dashes. But Nix now can dashes.
>> So what convention should I use when submitting new haskell packages
On 10/08/2013 11:24 AM, Daniel Hlynskyi wrote:
> Hello. There is a convention to convert haskell packages names to camelCase
> when they contain dashes. But Nix now can dashes.
> So what convention should I use when submitting new haskell packages to
> `nixpkgs`?
The nixpkgs manual says:
"Dashes
Hello. There is a convention to convert haskell packages names to camelCase
when they contain dashes. But Nix now can dashes.
So what convention should I use when submitting new haskell packages to
`nixpkgs`?
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science
