Quoting Sander van der Burg (2014-10-12 14:21:17) > I think most of you probably know it already, but I've written a blog post > about the reengineered implementation, that can be found here: http:// > sandervanderburg.blogspot.com/2014/10/ > deploying-npm-packages-with-nix-package.html > > Second, I have some good and some bad news. > > Good news is that there were a few people lately, having problems with > deploying certain packages with the old npm2nix (one time there was another > cyclic dependency). I tested the same packages with the new npm2nix and they > seem to deploy just fine without problems. So I think it that the new approach > really solves some very nasty problems and accurately simulates most of NPM's > way of managing dependencies. > > The only bad thing so far is that the new approach is a lot slower. I'm > specifically talking about the time it takes to deploy something with > nix-build > or nix-env. > > The slowness is basically caused by the fact that for each dependency I want > to > include, I have to tell which shared dependencies have been provided already > to > correctly simulate the way version ranges are resolved. I need to run semver > for this. Moreover, to also prevent infinite recursion because of cyclic > dependencies, I use a expression generation trick. > > I think I already have a few optimizations in mind, but they are difficult to > implement and I might break stuff again. For example, if I'm absolutely sure > there are no cycles in a deployment, I can skip the dependency generation > trick, for example. Question is: how to detect this? > > I don't think the slowness is problematic for private projects, but it might > be > too expensive to use that for the set of NPM packages part of Nixpkgs. > > On the other hand, I also think that in the future, most packages should be > deployed privately in NPM projects. The main reason why I recommend this is > that version range specifiers do not always resolve to their latest compatible > versions. The actual version used is context specific -- if some project > requires async 0.2.x, the latest conforming version is 0.2.9, but a shared > dependency is 0.2.5, then 0.2.5 is used. That's why you have to reconsider the > complete tree of dependencies for every project. > > The only packages that still need to be deployed from Nixpkgs IMHO are > end-user > utilities (command-line utilities) and libraries used by non-NPM projects. > > So I'm still thinking a bit about it and what I can do to make the performance > better. In the worst case, I have to throw away the entire approach and invent > something new, if it turns out that the performance is too problematic. > > What do you think? > > -- Sander > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Sander van der Burg <svanderb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > Since the sprint in Ljubljana until now, I've been working on npm2nix's > issues. I basically reengineered most of it (e.g. rewritten it to > JavaScript and modularized it a bit further) and I think the > implementation > is fairly complete now. I've incorporated as much of Shea's functionaility > into the reengineered version as I could. > > The new implementation handles dependencies in such a way that its > behavior > is closer to what NPM does. Moreover, it should also properly cope with > cyclic dependencies. The way dependencies are resolved is actually much > more advanced than the original npm2nix implementation. For example, it > uses semver to make matches between version ranges. > > In theory, also cyclic dependencies that match on version ranges should be > handled properly, although I haven't encountered them yet. > > Using the reengineered version is straight forward. You can obtain it from > my private Git fork: > > https://github.com/svanderburg/npm2nix/tree/reengineering > > I have updated the README.md file of npm2nix to elaborate a bit more about > the possible use cases of npm2nix. So I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to > read it first. > > Installation can be done by opening the git checkout, and running: > > $ nix-env -f default.nix -iA build > > Moreover, you don't need to update Nixpkgs. The new build function is > actually part of npm2nix. > > I've used the reengineered npm2nix on a private project for the company I > work for, as well as some other utilities and it seems to work fine for > me. > > Hopefully, you can also try npm2nix on your projects to find out whether > there any additional issues. :) > > Furthermore, I'm still working a blog post to rationalize all the stuff, > which should give you better insights in the problem, details and the > choices I made. > > Let me know what you think! > > Regards, > > Sander > > > > > >
hi Sander, sorry for slow response, i was too busy last weeks. i've tried your fork of npm2nix on current project. my package.json looks like: { "name": "XXX", "version": "0.0.1", "dependencies": { "css-loader": "~0.9.0", "domready": "~1.0.7", "file-loader": "~0.7.2", "jsx-loader": "~0.11.2", "less-loader": "~0.7.7", "lodash": "~2.4.1", "react": "~0.11.2", "react-bootstrap": "~0.12.0", "react-router": "~0.9.2", "script-loader": "~0.6.0", "socket.io-client": "~0.9.17", "style-loader": "~0.8.1", "url-loader": "~0.5.5", "webpack": "~1.4.4" } } generating default.nix, node-env.nix and registry.nix works but when trying to build it using `nix-build -A build` i get the following error: https://gist.github.com/garbas/1ae5f5cf688561d03be5 i remember in the past we had problems with fsevents but i can remember how we fixed them. -- Rok Garbas - http://www.garbas.si _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev