In my experience, the majority of scripts in nixpkgs either put
dependend packages in buildInputs or interpolate them directly into
scripts; adding a package directly as an env var is rare. Why is this
worth giving up the superior readability and fidelity to actual package
name provided by dashes?
On 10/11/2014 02:55 PM, Shea Levy wrote:
In my experience, the majority of scripts in nixpkgs either put
dependend packages in buildInputs or interpolate them directly into
scripts; adding a package directly as an env var is rare. Why is this
worth giving up the superior readability and fidelity
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 03:09:37PM +0200, Vladimír Čunát wrote:
On 10/11/2014 02:55 PM, Shea Levy wrote:
In my experience, the majority of scripts in nixpkgs either put
dependend packages in buildInputs or interpolate them directly into
scripts; adding a package directly as an env var is rare.
On 10/11/2014 03:16 PM, Shea Levy wrote:
If you do { inherit gcc; }, then $gcc just points to gcc's out path at
build time.
Yes, I know, but I did not find that much useful yet. As you point out,
packages are typically put into *buildInputs or used on nix-level (in
strings). The probability
Dash in package names are cool, because they map to the real package name.
However I just found a breaker: bash does not support variables with dash.
$foo-bar or ${foo-bar} or whatever does not work.
Shall we reconsider the use of dash and prefer the underscore instead for
package names?
On 10 October 2014 22:56, Luca Bruno lethalma...@gmail.com wrote:
Dash in package names are cool, because they map to the real package name.
However I just found a breaker: bash does not support variables with dash.
$foo-bar or ${foo-bar} or whatever does not work.
I don't understand. Why/when
derivation {
inherit foo-bar;
buildPhase = ''
use $foo-bar...
'';
}
Apart ${foo-bar}.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Bjørn Forsman bjorn.fors...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 10 October 2014 22:56, Luca Bruno lethalma...@gmail.com wrote:
Dash in package names are cool, because they map to
Wouldn't it make more sense to simply map foo-bar on a derivation to
foo_bar as a shell variable? Are there any significant cases where
this would be problematic?
On 10 October 2014 22:39, Luca Bruno lethalma...@gmail.com wrote:
derivation {
inherit foo-bar;
buildPhase = ''
use
I particularly prefer camelCase!
2014-10-10 19:35 GMT-03:00 Shell Turner cam.t...@gmail.com:
Wouldn't it make more sense to simply map foo-bar on a derivation to
foo_bar as a shell variable? Are there any significant cases where
this would be problematic?
On 10 October 2014 22:39, Luca Bruno
