[Nix-dev] On npm2nix and the NPM package set in Nixpkgs
Kamil Chmielewski
kamil.chm at gmail.com
Tue Jul 5 15:14:37 CEST 2016
+1.. I'll do this in go2nix.
--
Kamil
2016-07-05 15:10 GMT+02:00 Rok Garbas <rok at garbas.si>:
> +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 <graham at grahamc.com>
> wrote:
> > 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 hours of searching and trying different tools. Something
> > like:
> >
> > // Generated by lang2nix v0.1.0
> > // See more at https://github.com/myuser/lang2nix
> >
> > would be a really nice usability adjustment.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 7:36 AM Rok Garbas <rok at garbas.si> wrote:
> >>
> >> we can still keep and old version of npm2nix in nixpkgs for ppl who use
> >> it.
> >> and also a branch with old code could be created, for people that want
> >> pudh bugfixes or develop further (very unlikely).
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Tomasz Czyż <tomasz.czyz at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Rok,
> >> >
> >> > what about people who are already using previous solution? Why break
> >> > their
> >> > workflows?
> >> >
> >> > 2016-07-05 7:36 GMT+01:00 Rok Garbas <rok at garbas.si>:
> >> >>
> >> >> +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 <tobias.pflug at gmx.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > 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 integration tool.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I also definitely want to see the current set of auto-generated
> node
> >> >> > packages removed from nix. They are almost exclusively *totally*
> >> >> > outdated.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thank you a lot for your continued efforts on this. Working with
> >> >> > npm/node is
> >> >> > annoying but we are better off with your contributions.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > cheers,
> >> >> > Tobi
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On 22 Jun 2016, at 20:24, Sander van der Burg <
> svanderburg at gmail.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hello Nix and Node.js users,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I have been absent for a while in this discussion, but as far as I
> >> >> > know
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > state of the NPM packages in Nixpkgs is still quite bad and despite
> >> >> > some
> >> >> > discussions on the mailing list we have not really come to any
> >> >> > consensus
> >> >> > yet.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > As some of you may know, I have my own re-engineered version of
> >> >> > npm2nix
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > lives in a specific branch in my own personal fork
> >> >> > (https://github.com/svanderburg/npm2nix/tree/reengineering2). A
> few
> >> >> > months
> >> >> > ago, I did some major efforts in getting npm 3.x's behaviour
> >> >> > supported,
> >> >> > which I have documented in this blog post:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> http://sandervanderburg.blogspot.com/2016/02/managing-npm-flat-module-installations.html
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I have been using this reengineering2 branch for all my public and
> >> >> > some
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > my private projects since the beginning of this year, and for me it
> >> >> > seems to
> >> >> > work quite well, despite the fact that some of npm 3.x's flat
> module
> >> >> > installation oddities are still not accurately supported yet.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I also received a couple of reports from other people claiming that
> >> >> > their
> >> >> > projects work and even encountered some people saying that it
> should
> >> >> > replace
> >> >> > the current npm2nix. :)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Obviously, I do not want to claim that my implementation is the
> >> >> > perfect
> >> >> > solution as it (for example) is much slower than the vanilla
> npm2nix,
> >> >> > and it
> >> >> > composes the entire set of dependencies in one derivation as
> opposed
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > generating a Nix store path per NPM dependency. (I do this for a
> very
> >> >> > good
> >> >> > reason. For more details, please read my blog post).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Furthermore, I have also spoken to people that suggested completely
> >> >> > different kinds of approaches in getting NPM supported in a Nix
> >> >> > environment.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Something that I have not done yet is investigating whether this
> >> >> > reengineered solution could be a potential replacement for the NPM
> >> >> > packages
> >> >> > set in Nixpkgs.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Today, I have been working on an integration pattern, and the good
> >> >> > news
> >> >> > is:
> >> >> > it seems that I was able to generate Nix expressions for almost all
> >> >> > packages
> >> >> > that are in pkgs/top-level/node-packages.json. The only exceptions
> >> >> > were
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > node-xmpp-* and bip-* packages, but some of them seem to have
> broken
> >> >> > dependencies, which is not npm2nix's fault.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If we would proceed integrating, we have a number of practical
> >> >> > implications:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > - I believe it is desired to have both Node.js 4.x and Node.js 5.x,
> >> >> > 6.x
> >> >> > supported (I actually need all of them). To support all of these,
> we
> >> >> > need
> >> >> > two different sets of generated Nix expressions. The former uses
> npm
> >> >> > 2.x
> >> >> > with the classic dependency addressing approach and the latter uses
> >> >> > npm
> >> >> > 3.x
> >> >> > with flat module installations.
> >> >> > - I think most library packages should be removed from
> >> >> > node-packages.json:
> >> >> > as explained in my blog post: how a package gets composed and to
> >> >> > which
> >> >> > version a range resolve depends on the state of the includer. When
> >> >> > somebody
> >> >> > wants their own NPM project to be deployed, he should use npm2nix
> >> >> > directly
> >> >> > on package.json, and not refer to any NPM libraries in Nixpkgs.
> >> >> > - Some NPM packages must be overridden to provide native
> >> >> > dependencies.
> >> >> > The
> >> >> > mechanisms that the reengineering2 branch use are different. It
> would
> >> >> > probably take a bit of effort to get these migrated.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > For example, this is how I override the webdrvr package to provide
> >> >> > phantomjs
> >> >> > and the Selenium webdriver:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > {pkgs, system}:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > let
> >> >> > nodePackages = import ./composition-v4.nix {
> >> >> > inherit pkgs system;
> >> >> > };
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > nodePackages // {
> >> >> > webdrvr = nodePackages.webdrvr.override (oldAttrs: {
> >> >> > buildInputs = oldAttrs.buildInputs ++ [ pkgs.phantomjs ];
> >> >> >
> >> >> > preRebuild = ''
> >> >> > mkdir $TMPDIR/webdrvr
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ln -s ${pkgs.fetchurl {
> >> >> > url =
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "
> https://selenium-release.storage.googleapis.com/2.43/selenium-server-standalone-2.43.1.jar
> ";
> >> >> > sha1 = "ef1b5f8ae9c99332f99ba8794988a1d5b974d27b";
> >> >> > }} $TMPDIR/webdrvr/selenium-server-standalone-2.43.1.jar
> >> >> > ln -s ${pkgs.fetchurl {
> >> >> > url =
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "
> http://chromedriver.storage.googleapis.com/2.10/chromedriver_linux64.zip";
> >> >> > sha1 = "26220f7e43ee3c0d714860db61c4d0ecc9bb3d89";
> >> >> > }} $TMPDIR/webdrvr/chromedriver_linux64.zip
> >> >> >
> >> >> > '';
> >> >> > });
> >> >> > }
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Although we have some practical issues, I think none of them would
> >> >> > impose a
> >> >> > serious problem.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Then about npm2nix itself: Obviously, we could say that my version
> >> >> > replaces
> >> >> > the upstream npm2nix and gets "blessed" into the new "official"
> >> >> > version,
> >> >> > but
> >> >> > I don't know whether everybody likes it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Alternatively, we could be a bit more pragmatic: I stop calling my
> >> >> > reengineering2 version npm2nix, I give it a different name and I
> >> >> > release
> >> >> > it
> >> >> > as a different package. This makes it possible for those who want
> it,
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > still use the 'vanilla' npm2nix alongside my version.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Then in Nixpkgs we can decide to:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > - to keep npm2nix the default and provide my tool as a package
> >> >> > - or to make the reengineering2 version the default, and provide
> >> >> > npm2nix
> >> >> > as
> >> >> > a package
> >> >> > - in theory: support both package sets, but this might be a bit
> >> >> > overkill
> >> >> > :)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > For those who don't know: although my repository is a fork of
> >> >> > npm2nix,
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > reengineering2 version is basically a rewrite of npm2nix and quite
> >> >> > different
> >> >> > than the upstream version. It is written in JavaScript (as opposed
> to
> >> >> > CoffeeScript), has a different modular structure and different
> >> >> > command-line
> >> >> > interface, so that's why I'm very careful in proposing to replace
> the
> >> >> > upstream npm2nix.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Moreover, it also does not share any git revision history with the
> >> >> > upstream
> >> >> > npm2nix. :)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > As a final note: for those who do not know about this: the
> >> >> > reengineering2
> >> >> > tool can already be used outside Nixpkgs and this is what I have
> been
> >> >> > doing
> >> >> > for all my projects. The expressions that it generates are based on
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > principles I have described in this blog post:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> http://sandervanderburg.blogspot.com/2014/07/managing-private-nix-packages-outside.html
> >> >> >
> >> >> > My apologies for this very long email, but I'd like to have your
> >> >> > feedback
> >> >> > and I don't want my preferences to disrupt other people's
> workflows.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What do you think?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Best,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Sander
> >> >> >
> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > 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
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Rok Garbas
> >> >> http://www.garbas.si
> >> >> rok at garbas.si
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> nix-dev mailing list
> >> >> nix-dev at lists.science.uu.nl
> >> >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Tomasz Czyż
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Rok Garbas
> >> http://www.garbas.si
> >> rok at garbas.si
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> nix-dev mailing list
> >> nix-dev at lists.science.uu.nl
> >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Rok Garbas
> http://www.garbas.si
> rok at garbas.si
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160705/c75aac78/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the nix-dev
mailing list