Nix packaging #19
Nix packaging #19
Conversation
folkertdev
left a comment
folkertdev
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've made the repo public now.
Maybe we want a
package.nixinstead of adefault.nix?
No clue. Based on some quick searches default.nix is a fine option for small projects.
Maybe we want to change the imports to something along the lines of
I don't have strong feelings about this.
default.nix
Outdated
| # Currently, it uses the current directory as a source: | ||
| src = ./.; | ||
|
|
||
| # When the repository becomes public, we probably want something like this instead: | ||
|
|
||
| # src = fetchFromGitHub { | ||
| # owner = "trifectatechfoundation"; | ||
| # repo = "ziplinter"; | ||
| # rev = "4cac21b3bbf83b71409c6747248b98ea6f8d5306"; # can be a commit hash or a release tag | ||
| # hash = "sha256-AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA="; | ||
| # }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
please note that you can get packaging help (for free) from the NGI project. Just contact NLnet.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure, but there is some bureaucracy there, and this should just work regardless right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's now using fetchFromGitHub. Maybe it would be nice to create a release on GitHub and use the release tag instead of the commit hash?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure, but there is some bureaucracy there, and this should just work regardless right?
Is the goal to also publish it on nixpkgs? If so, some help from someone who has done so before could be nice just to confirm we are doing everything in the proper manner. Alternatively, we could also just submit a PR and see what happens
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This allows you to build the
ziplinterPython module using:(the parameters are needed to make the imports work)
Some things to consider:
package.nixinstead of adefault.nix?