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

[Tomasz Czyż]

2016-01-08 15:55 GMT+00:00 Arseniy Seroka <ars.seroka at gmail.com>:

> 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 not only me...

Fixing this shouldn't be that hard I think. If we will go to the point
where "top-packages" could be autogenerated or not needed at all (I'm not
sure what plans are about that but probably some duplication could be
limited there), than fixing file layout will not be very time consuming
(imho).



> On 8 Jan 2016 18:53, "Domen Kožar" <domen at dev.si> 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).
>>
>> 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 structure. That does impose problems since it's hard to find a system
>> to categorize software.
>>
>> It's really worth checking out what other package managers do and see who
>> is happy about their structure.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 4:47 PM, zimbatm <zimbatm at zimbatm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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, pkgsrc, ... One of them is bound to work, mostly. The nice
>>> benefit would also be of not having to talk about categorization ever
>>> again, unless the packaged project doesn't exist in the canonical
>>> repository.
>>>
>>> I don't care what structure we chose as long as it's shallower than what
>>> we have right now. Like OP I'm tired of searching for packages and then
>>> entering long paths in my shell.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 at 15:03 Bjørn Forsman <bjorn.forsman at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8 January 2016 at 15:58, Vladimír Čunát <vcunat at gmail.com> 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
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


-- 
Tomasz Czyż
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.science.uu.nl/pipermail/nix-dev/attachments/20160108/2b46cf43/attachment.html