[Nix-dev] Publish All of Hackage

[Daniel Peebles]

>
> The downside of this approach is that generating the entire Haskell
> package set is actually kind of expensive, and we probably wouldn't want
> to impose those costs onto random users who just wants to have XMonad
> for their window manager
>

Couldn't the derivation we're importing from be cached like any other
"binary" cache value? I've never checked, but intuitively it seems like it
would make sense.

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Peter Simons <simons at cryp.to> wrote:

> Hi Oliver,
>
>  > [You really want to commit] the scripts that *generate* the 50mb file
>  > as some sort of Nix expression. Then, when I as a user choose to
>  > evaluate the set of Haskell packages, I will be forced to generate
>  > all the Nix expressions - or, this being Nix, ask a binary
>  > substitution server for that.
>
> you are right -- that is totally what we should do, and we *can* do it
> with Nix today, because we can import from a store derivation during
> evaluation. Thank you for the suggestion!
>
> Now, I suppose this begets the question of why we check the "small"
> hackage-packages.nix file into Nixpkgs? Shouldn't that be generated
> during evaluation, too?
>
> The downside of this approach is that generating the entire Haskell
> package set is actually kind of expensive, and we probably wouldn't want
> to impose those costs onto random users who just wants to have XMonad
> for their window manager, but still ... it's tempting to argue that
> generated files should not be part of Nixpkgs. Instead, the generation
> process should be.
>
> Best regards,
> Peter
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151120/6763941a/attachment.html