[Nix-dev] systemPackages vs. services.dbus.packages

[Kirill Elagin]

Yes, we can nub them (to be precise, it makes sense to subtract
`systemPackages` from `dbus.packages`), those lists contain
package names, not derivations.

But, why not simply require all the packages that provide DBus services to
be added to `dbus.packages`? That way we avoid duplication and have an
explicit
list of packages that have something to do with DBus (it might be useful in
the future).


--
Кирилл Елагин


On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Mathijs Kwik <mathijs at bluescreen303.nl>wrote:

> Vladimír Čunát <vcunat at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On 04/07/2014 11:36 AM, Kirill Elagin wrote:
> >> So, the question is: what is the purpose of having
> >> services.dbus.packages if those configs are considered anyway due to
> >> packages being in systemPackages?
> >
> > AFAIK there are cases where packages are not put into systemPackages,
> > only to services.dbus.packages. (But that can't prevent the users or
> > other options from independently adding the very same package to
> > systemPackages.)
>
> I use that as much as possible.
> There's really no need for a lot of packages to be in systemPackages or
> in some user profile if they only provide a service and don't have lots
> of often-used CLI tools. Same goes for udevPackages.
>
> However, wouldn't it be possible to uniq/nub these lists on evaluation?
> It's perfectly functional/declarative, but I don't know if derivations
> are comparable (for equality).
>
>
> >
> >
> > Vlada
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nix-dev mailing list
> > nix-dev at lists.science.uu.nl
> > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
> _______________________________________________
> nix-dev mailing list
> nix-dev at lists.science.uu.nl
> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.science.uu.nl/pipermail/nix-dev/attachments/20140409/18e0cefa/attachment.html