New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add basic support for listing texlive packages #203
Conversation
@Mathnerd314 Great work! I think this would be better to solve in nixpkgs as we do for other package sets. I would assume there would be nixos search is already a lot of hacks and a small force is keeping it all together for now. I would hate to add more complexity to it, especially since it would be better to upstream this. What do you think, can you open a PR against nixpkgs and reference this discussion? |
I tried hacking on it, but the texlive code is quite complicated compared to other package sets with the way it filters and groups outputs. I don't think I can open a PR. Maybe @veprbl knows the code better than me... |
@Mathnerd314 So expression in the PR doesn't work yet? |
Well, it works as far as I can test it (for basic packages, not for collections or schemes). But AIUI @garbas is saying he'd rather change nixpkgs than include a workaround in nixos-search. But from poking around, it seems changing paths like |
@Mathnerd314 We could move your expression to |
@veprbl I'm not aware how texlive packaging is done, but search.nixos.org will only list installable packages. I assume the situation is similar as with vimPlugins for example or emacsPackages. You can not really use it if you install it but it is still a derivation. |
Sorry, I'm confused. It currently does search on |
Sorry for the confusion. I think I to define what installable package is and then discussion will be easier 👍 An installable package is a derivation and has a clear attr path to it. In case of In case of Would it be possible to create |
I guess we could talk about different levels of "installable packages":
I'm only sure that 0. is achievable, but personally I am not convinced that it is worth it on its own. |
@veprbl yes, number 0 is what is needed. maybe if this new API is created as |
Fix for issue #202. The packages show up in the nix-env listing, so the Nix part seems fine, but I don't know how to test the Python part as it seems to require setting up elasticsearch.
(and of course it's hacky, but the Texlive packaging scheme is completely different from the rest of nixpkgs...)