Re: [Nix-dev] On npm2nix and the NPM package set in Nixpkgs

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 4:19 AM, Tomasz Czyż wrote: > Are you sure that having multiple tools/solutions is frustrating? Maybe > it's just lack of description or documentation? > (btw, currently there is only one, Sander is trying to introduce second > "official" one if I

Re: [Nix-dev] On npm2nix and the NPM package set in Nixpkgs

How about: name this new one npm2nix_2 and make it the default. If you want the old one, instal npm2nix_1. On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:19 PM Tomasz Czyż wrote: > 2016-07-13 22:13 GMT+01:00 Wout Mertens : > >> Great! >> >> I tried npm2nix a few times

Re: [Nix-dev] On npm2nix and the NPM package set in Nixpkgs

2016-07-13 22:13 GMT+01:00 Wout Mertens : > Great! > > I tried npm2nix a few times and never really got it to work. I can't > imagine that there are a lot of people that use npm2nix that would not be > able to switch to your new version if it got added as npm2nix. > I'm

Re: [Nix-dev] On npm2nix and the NPM package set in Nixpkgs

Great! I tried npm2nix a few times and never really got it to work. I can't imagine that there are a lot of people that use npm2nix that would not be able to switch to your new version if it got added as npm2nix. Having multiple solutions for the same thing is a frustrating experience for people

Re: [Nix-dev] On npm2nix and the NPM package set in Nixpkgs

Hi, I just created a pull request for the release-16.03 branch integrating my node2nix generated package set: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/16886 I'm looking for feedback as I haven't extensively tested everything. My stuff seems to work properly, though. If we find the results

Re: [Nix-dev] On npm2nix and the NPM package set in Nixpkgs

One possible way is to add some attribute in current nixpkgs indicating version of checksumming scheme, e.g. `fetchgit.checksumVersion`. However, this implies that you would run something like `nix-instantiate` to determine it, and so you need access to the nixpkgs tree -- IIRC you don't have such

Re: [Nix-dev] On npm2nix and the NPM package set in Nixpkgs

My personal preference is that the last npm2nix release supports the latest stable Nixpkgs only. I have noticed that more things (including Hydra) seem to break after this change in fetchgit. On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Sander van der Burg wrote: > Thanks for the

Re: [Nix-dev] On npm2nix and the NPM package set in Nixpkgs

Thanks for the reference. Actually, the change in Nixpkgs makes sense, as I never understood why any file with a .git prefix had to be removed. Similarly, I replicated this odd behaviour in npm2nix. I have managed to implement a fix for this locally (which I haven't pushed yet). The only annoying

Re: [Nix-dev] On npm2nix and the NPM package set in Nixpkgs

I think you should just go ahead and create a PR which replaces the current npm2nix with yours and removes the currently imported nodejs nix packages - last time I checked they were all like at least 1 major version behind anyway. After this "cut" no libraries, only nodejs cli programs should

Re: [Nix-dev] On npm2nix and the NPM package set in Nixpkgs

Well, for me personally it does not matter that much. So far, I have only seen one +1 vote for making my version the new npm2nix. However, not so long ago, I noticed that there was another incoming pull request for the vanilla npm2nix. Perhaps the person who filed it, did not know about the

Re: [Nix-dev] On npm2nix and the NPM package set in Nixpkgs

Good point! I just also made a change that adds a small disclaimer comment on top the generated expressions. On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Graham Christensen wrote: > You all are great! Thank you so much! > > Graham > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 8:14 AM Kamil Chmielewski

Re: [Nix-dev] On npm2nix and the NPM package set in Nixpkgs

You all are great! Thank you so much! Graham On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 8:14 AM Kamil Chmielewski wrote: > +1.. I'll do this in go2nix. > > -- > Kamil > > 2016-07-05 15:10 GMT+02:00 Rok Garbas : > >> +1 ... i did just that recently for pypi2nix. but i'll also

Re: [Nix-dev] On npm2nix and the NPM package set in Nixpkgs

+1.. I'll do this in go2nix. -- Kamil 2016-07-05 15:10 GMT+02:00 Rok Garbas : > +1 ... i did just that recently for pypi2nix. but i'll also add a link > to the project home. > > [1] > https://github.com/garbas/pypi2nix/commit/339aee3b149909430ebe7e3e27b8cf158addaef1 > > On Tue,

Re: [Nix-dev] On npm2nix and the NPM package set in Nixpkgs

+1 ... i did just that recently for pypi2nix. but i'll also add a link to the project home. [1] https://github.com/garbas/pypi2nix/commit/339aee3b149909430ebe7e3e27b8cf158addaef1 On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Graham Christensen wrote: > I've found myself confused by

Re: [Nix-dev] On npm2nix and the NPM package set in Nixpkgs

I've found myself confused by multiple projects using the same lang2nix name, and big changes in format. One consistent complaint I have is the top of the file usually says: // Generated by lang2nix but having more information like a version number and a URL to the project would have saved

Re: [Nix-dev] On npm2nix and the NPM package set in Nixpkgs

Ok good to hear! The reason why I would take the pragmatic approach is because I know from experience that any kind of fundamental change (regardless of whether is good or bad) will take time for people to accept. Having two versions makes it possible for people to gradually accept and to

Re: [Nix-dev] On npm2nix and the NPM package set in Nixpkgs

Thank you for the responses so far To remind you about the set of packages I intend to include: I only want end-user software (such as command-line utilities) and packages that are dependencies of non-NPM projects to appear in Nixpkgs. All the other packages will be removed from

Re: [Nix-dev] On npm2nix and the NPM package set in Nixpkgs

For what it’s worth, I’m using the re-engineeering2 branch standalone for projects with hundreds of npm dependencies. The way I use it right now is like this: https://gist.github.com/manveru/20d22586d9dceae90930be528cbc49ce Having it as a part of nixpkgs would be nice, but won’t really change

Re: [Nix-dev] On npm2nix and the NPM package set in Nixpkgs

Hi > On 04 Jul 2016, at 17:34, Sander van der Burg wrote: > > So far only one response... Sorry, was silent agreement on my end ;) > I'm planning to implement the most pragmatic approach very soon -- due to > lack of a better/cooler name I'll rename my fork of npm2nix

Re: [Nix-dev] On npm2nix and the NPM package set in Nixpkgs

Rok, what about people who are already using previous solution? Why break their workflows? 2016-07-05 7:36 GMT+01:00 Rok Garbas : > +1 for just keeping the name npm2nix and bumping up the version. > > i'm not using it on any active project, but i'm going to in the near > future.

Re: [Nix-dev] On npm2nix and the NPM package set in Nixpkgs

+1 for just keeping the name npm2nix and bumping up the version. i'm not using it on any active project, but i'm going to in the near future. On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Tobias Pflug wrote: > Hi Sander, > > sorry for my very late response. I'll make this one brief

Re: [Nix-dev] On npm2nix and the NPM package set in Nixpkgs

Hi Sander, sorry for my very late response. I'll make this one brief as I am sadly on my phone. I belong to one of those who tried your new npm2nix and in fact am already using it regularly. I am very much in favor of having your re-engineeering2 branch replacing npm2nix as the de-facto node

Re: [Nix-dev] On npm2nix and the NPM package set in Nixpkgs

So far only one response... I'm planning to implement the most pragmatic approach very soon -- due to lack of a better/cooler name I'll rename my fork of npm2nix to node2nix. Moreover, I will add a second attribute set to Nixpkgs allowing people to deploy packages that have been generated with

Re: [Nix-dev] On npm2nix and the NPM package set in Nixpkgs

Hi Sander, awesome stuff. I would say, change name to something like node2nix and let's merge the thing as it looks very good. Pros: - backward compatibility - process of merging will be lot faster (IMHO) as it will not collide with anything and probably this will limit non productive