This sounds like a great initiative. I would be glad to help (feel free to hand me some tasks).
> The second solution would be a large added maintenance and Hydra burden > as the number of packages would increase dramatically. In turn we would > have binaries for a lot of versions which while nice, is probably a > waste of resources: users very often want latest version. How many build servers do we currently have? What are their specs? Would more/better machines be useful/feasible? I'd be willing to donate about $200/month, if it'll help. I would imagine there are companies that would be willing to chip in too (if that's not the case, we need to fix that). -Charles On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Paul Colomiets <p...@colomiets.name> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Luca Bruno <lethalma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Not necessarily. Think like platforms.gnu. There may be a > > meta.pythonVersions and a default pythonVersions.default2 and > > pythonVersions.default3 and pythonVersions.all or such. Then adding a new > > major version to all packages is a metter of adding it to the default > list. > > Yes this approach seems better. Also many packages support >= 3.2 or > >=3.3, so it's not just py2 or py3 choice. > > > > -- > Paul > _______________________________________________ > nix-dev mailing list > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev