Following [Best Practices](https://nix.dev/guides/best-practices#with-scopes),
`with` is a problematic language construction and should be avoided.
Usually it is employed like a "factorization": `[ X.A X.B X.C X.D ]` is written
`with X; [ A B C D ]`.
However, as shown in the link above, the syntatical rules of `with` are not so
intuitive, and this "distributive rule" is very selective, in the sense that
`with X; [ A B C D ]` is not equivalent to `[ X.A X.B X.C X.D ]`.
However, this factorization is still useful to "squeeze" some code, especially
in lists like `meta.maintainers`.
On the other hand, it becomes less justifiable in bigger scopes. This is
especially true in cases like `with lib;` in the top of expression and in sets
like `meta = with lib; { . . . }`.
That being said, this patch removes most of example code in the current
documentation.
The exceptions are, for now
- doc/functions/generators.section.md
- doc/languages-frameworks/coq.section.md
because, well, they are way more complicated, and I couldn't parse them
mentally - yet another reason why `with` should be avoided!
This is an alternative to `fetchNpmDeps` that is notably different in that it uses metadata from `package.json` & `package-lock.json` instead of specifying a fixed-output hash.
Notable features:
- IFD free.
- Only fetches a node dependency once. No massive FODs.
- Support for URL, Git and path dependencies.
- Uses most of the existing `npmHooks`
`importNpmLock` can be used _only_ in the cases where we need to check in a `package-lock.json` in the tree.
Currently this means that we have 13 packages that would be candidates to use this function, though I expect most usage to be in private repositories.
This is upstreaming the builder portion of https://github.com/adisbladis/buildNodeModules into nixpkgs (different naming but the code is the same).
I will archive this repository and consider nixpkgs the new upstream once it's been merged.
For more explanations and rationale see https://discourse.nixos.org/t/buildnodemodules-the-dumbest-node-to-nix-packaging-tool-yet/35733
Example usage:
``` nix
stdenv.mkDerivation {
pname = "my-nodejs-app";
version = "0.1.0";
src = ./.;
nativeBuildInputs = [
importNpmLock.hooks.npmConfigHook
nodejs
nodejs.passthru.python # for node-gyp
npmHooks.npmBuildHook
npmHooks.npmInstallHook
];
npmDeps = buildNodeModules.fetchNodeModules {
npmRoot = ./.;
};
}
```
I was looking at
https://nixos.org/manual/nixpkgs/stable/#buildpythonpackage-parameters to
import a Python package and noticed that the link for the `hooks` in
`pyproject` option is broken due to a typo (used <kbd>0</kbd> instead of
<kbd>)</kbd>).
Signed-off-by: Mihai Maruseac <mihai.maruseac@gmail.com>
Much like the previous commit that adds dependencies &
optional-dependencies this aligns PEP-517 build systems with how they
are defined in PEP-518/PEP-621.
The naming `build-system` (singular) is aligned with upstream Python standards.
Since https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/161835 we've had the
concept of `passthru.optional-dependencies` for Python optional deps.
Having to explicitly put optional-dependencies in the passthru attrset
is a bit strange API-wise, even though it semantically makes sense.
This change unifies the handling of non-optional & optional Python
dependencies using the names established from PEP-621 (standardized pyproject.toml project metadata).
There is an arbitrary mapping being done right now between
nixpkgs lua infrastructre and luarocks config schema.
This is confusing if you use lua so let's make it possible to use the
lua names in the nixpkgs, thanks to the lib.generators.toLua convertor.
The only nixpkgs thing to remember should be to put the config into `luarocksConfig`
`buildLuarocksPackage.extraVariables` should become `buildLuarocksPackage.luarocksConfig.variables`
I believe it would be helpful to better explain how to use
`nuget-to-nix` for those who aren't familar with the .NET ecosystem as I
was personally stumped on how to use it.
`lib.recursiveUpdate` indiscriminately recurses into all attribute sets,
also into derivations. This means that it is possible that evaluating a
derivation in the final haskell package set can cause something in
`prev.haskell` to be forced by `recursiveUpdate`, potentially causing an
evaluation error that should not happen.
It can be fixed using a well-crafted predicate for
`lib.recursiveUpdateUntil`, but most robust is just explicitly writing
out the desired merging manually.
