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

[Wout Mertens]

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 <tomasz.czyz at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2016-07-13 22:13 GMT+01:00 Wout Mertens <wout.mertens at gmail.com>:
>
>> 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 just trying to show similar situation:
> "I don't know if anyone is using gnome, but let's remove it because I
> think it's difficult to use and nobody is using it" :-)
>
> I think there were some cases similar to this one before and what was
> suggested to check if the binary cache is used (if people are downloading
> the package) or other way to check if package is being used.
>
>
>> Having multiple solutions for the same thing is a frustrating experience
>> for people that want to start using nix for npm. I would prefer simply
>> replacing npm2nix.
>>
> 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 understand situation correctly).
>
> Sander, maybe you could add a manual change to your PR to explain this
> situation/move and how the tools can be used?
>
>
>
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 3:00 PM Sander van der Burg <
>> svanderburg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 satisfactory,
>>> I will implement the same kinds of changes for the master branch as well.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Sander
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Nikolay Amiantov <ab at fmap.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 requirements now, and adding whole
>>>> complexity for just getting this version seems unreasonable.
>>>>
>>>> What about pushing different versions of your utility to release and
>>>> master branches? I feel this could cover most usecases...
>>>>
>>>> On 07/11/2016 01:26 PM, Sander van der Burg wrote:
>>>> > 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 thing is that the 16.03 stable release
>>>> > still uses the old git hash computation method, so I need to keep the
>>>> > old method intact.
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm still a bit puzzled on how to proceed -- I could decide to release
>>>> > my npm2nix version and use the hash computation method that works with
>>>> > 16.03 since that's the stable version and what end-users should use.
>>>> > Then for the master branch, people should switch to the development
>>>> > version of npm2nix that implements the new strategy. The only thing
>>>> I'm
>>>> > afraid of is that people forget about this and push broken versions of
>>>> > the Node.js packages to master.
>>>> >
>>>> > Alternatively, I could make both strategies configurable through a
>>>> > command-line parameter, but this is not very nice either. And still,
>>>> > end-users might forget about it and break the package set.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Nikolay.
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20160714/17b90c52/attachment-0001.html>