Hi > On 04 Jul 2016, at 17:34, Sander van der Burg <svanderb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So far only one response... Sorry, was silent agreement on my end ;)
> I'm planning to implement the most pragmatic approach very soon -- due to > lack of a better/cooler name I'll rename my fork of npm2nix to node2nix. > > Moreover, I will add a second attribute set to Nixpkgs allowing people to > deploy packages that have been generated with node2nix. Also, I will take the > original node-packages.json as a basis, but I will remove the library > packages that I believe that should not be in there. > > Because the old package set will still be there, nobody should be disrupted > and meanwhile people can try/test the new approach. > > Any objections? I've looked into you fork already, looks very positive to me. Appreciate your work on it and also the in-depth background explanation in your blog. :) I am using mainly pip2nix and npm2nix in my projects to generate package sets, willing to switch to node2nix soonish. >From my perspective, I would even take a switch under the same name, even if >it would mean a few hazzles for me potentially to get things up and running >again. On the other side, esp. if people use it and get such a change as a >surprise, it can be negative, since they would be forces to switch fast or get >the old npm2nix available still. At least a fallback option to get the old >npm2nix easily would be good to have if we keep the same name for the new >thing. Cheers, Johannes _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
