[Nix-dev] MariaDB 10.1.10 cycle

I know MariaDB 10.1.10 is not packaged yet, but simple version bump does not work: patching script interpreter paths in /nix/store/vwdhxnwq8n6kgyis6kf3yllkmlzwz5xi-mariadb-10.1.10-lib /nix/store/vwdhxnwq8n6kgyis6kf3yllkmlzwz5xi-mariadb-10.1.10-lib/bin/mysql_config: interpreter directive changed

Re: [Nix-dev] Flattening pkgs tree in nixpkgs/pkgs

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:53 PM Domen Kožar wrote: > Going for attribute set names is hard, since we have many aliases. > > We had a discussion about this at NixCon (I think Oliver Charles has the > notes). > Yep, I lead that sesison but unfortunately haven't had the bandwidth to

Re: [Nix-dev] Flattening pkgs tree in nixpkgs/pkgs

2016-01-08 15:55 GMT+00:00 Arseniy Seroka : > In my opinion we should spend our time and skills to solve more important > issues and problems. > On the other hand I agree with that, on the other I wasted some time figuring that stuff out and I'll waste more. And as it seems

Re: [Nix-dev] Flattening pkgs tree in nixpkgs/pkgs

2016-01-08 14:58 GMT+00:00 Vladimír Čunát : > On 01/08/2016 02:53 PM, Daniel Peebles wrote: > > I think the categories/directories could make more sense than they do > > today, and that all-packages.nix should be abolished > > The largest problem I see for categorization is

Re: [Nix-dev] MariaDB 10.1.10 cycle

https://github.com/MariaDB/server/commit/c597ed01112c2f6549c59e6548d4ff53803487df 2016-01-08 11:50 GMT+03:00 Игорь Пашев : > It looks like we can just remove that macro: > https://github.com/MariaDB/server/search?p=2=SHAREDIR=%E2%9C%93 We can't. But here is what happened

Re: [Nix-dev] Preference for building from source

On 01/08/2016 11:06 AM, Juho Östman wrote: > As for me, I think packages should be built from source whenever it is > possible. Building from source is always possible. That's what Hydra.nixos.org does for you. The binaries from there are used iff the build instructions are exactly the same as

Re: [Nix-dev] Preference for building from source

On 01/08/2016 11:26 AM, Rok Garbas wrote: > I think Juho (awesome name by the way!) was trying to figure out what > the is the general policy of nixpkgs expressions. Oh, I see now I got the meaning wrong. Good summary, Rok! --Vladimir smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

[Nix-dev] Preference for building from source

Does nixpkgs have a policy on building packages preferably from source? I have noticed the nix scripts of a few packages fetch a binary package instead of building from source, even though a source should also be available, for example Eclipse and Gradle. Is this a conscious decision, or were

Re: [Nix-dev] Flattening pkgs tree in nixpkgs/pkgs

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Tomasz Czyż wrote: > @Luca: > Why haproxy is more a tool and sigproxd is more application than tool? > ./tools/networking/haproxy > ./applications/networking/siproxd > Why there is no common networking category? (simple, because most

Re: [Nix-dev] Preference for building from source

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Vladimír Čunát wrote: > On 01/08/2016 11:06 AM, Juho Östman wrote: > > As for me, I think packages should be built from source whenever it is > possible. > > Building from source is always possible. That's what Hydra.nixos.org > does for you.

Re: [Nix-dev] Flattening pkgs tree in nixpkgs/pkgs

On 8 January 2016 at 15:58, Vladimír Čunát wrote: > Personally, I would make it much flatter and also make it (almost) > exactly correspond to our *attribute* hierarchy. That's a good idea, I think! /Bjørn ___ nix-dev mailing list

Re: [Nix-dev] Flattening pkgs tree in nixpkgs/pkgs

Adding another -1 to flattening all directories. I think the categories/directories could make more sense than they do today, and that all-packages.nix should be abolished (use builtins.readDir by default and a manual overrides file where necessary), but throwing away all structure because it

Re: [Nix-dev] Preference for building from source

As far as the particular examples of Eclipse and Gradle, I think the issue is that building java packages (especially big complicated ones like those) is currently rather painful in Nix. Unlike many other language ecosystems, we don't have a wealth of prepackaged libraries and dependencies for the

Re: [Nix-dev] Flattening pkgs tree in nixpkgs/pkgs

On 01/08/2016 02:53 PM, Daniel Peebles wrote: > I think the categories/directories could make more sense than they do > today, and that all-packages.nix should be abolished The largest problem I see for categorization is ambiguity (mentioned already). The "categories" will always overlap

Re: [Nix-dev] Flattening pkgs tree in nixpkgs/pkgs

Going for attribute set names is hard, since we have many aliases. We had a discussion about this at NixCon (I think Oliver Charles has the notes). In general, the only thing that really matters here is not to waste people time. Currently it's suboptimal, I'd really just be happy if we had flat

Re: [Nix-dev] Flattening pkgs tree in nixpkgs/pkgs

The issue with naming is that everyone has their opinion. Since other smart people have already played the categorization game can I suggest to restrict the discussion to which *existing* structure we should adopt ? There are a lot of big repositories out there: debian, gentoo portage, archlinux,

Re: [Nix-dev] Perl -> C++

On top of better defining the language it would also be helpful if the nix commands could be classified in core vs plumbing like git does. In theory only the core commands and the nixpkgs are required to bootstrap a fully-functioning nix platform right ? On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 at 13:18 Tomasz Czyż

Re: [Nix-dev] Flattening pkgs tree in nixpkgs/pkgs

In my opinion we should spend our time and skills to solve more important issues and problems. On 8 Jan 2016 18:53, "Domen Kožar" wrote: > Going for attribute set names is hard, since we have many aliases. > > We had a discussion about this at NixCon (I think Oliver Charles has the