This is already packaged as the tool https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/872b55a8c1c7fa110f26d5f29a8dc45f43bb267d/pkgs/tools/security/sequoia-tool/default.nix.

Perhaps you can upstream any improvements you can to that expression.

Too bad I missed that.. Proposing changes now seems more complicated. @worldofpeace , perhaps you could help me with some of the concerns I'm having?

It seems that he was concerned with having only the sq tool installed and not the rest of the package - he didn't use make install as the installPhase. This means it doesn't include all of the ffi libraries and the zsh and bash completion which are added to the appropriate paths thanks to upstream's Makefile.

I honestly think my expression is much superior. Additionally, I don't see a reason to use the -tool suffix at all.. I can open a new PR to make that expression similar to mine but I also wish to change the name, both the pname and at pkgs/top-level/all-packages.nix. Would that confuse anyone? Perhaps it'll be enough just to @mention him and so he could share his opinion on the matter?

Too bad I missed that.. Proposing changes now seems more complicated. @worldofpeace , perhaps you could help me with some of the concerns I'm having?

It seems that he was concerned with having only the sq tool installed and not the rest of the package - he didn't use make install as the installPhase. This means it doesn't include all of the ffi libraries and the zsh and bash completion which are added to the appropriate paths thanks to upstream's Makefile.

I honestly think my expression is much superior. Additionally, I don't see a reason to use the -tool suffix at all.. I can open a new PR to make that expression similar to mine but I also wish to change the name, both the pname and at pkgs/top-level/all-packages.nix. Would that confuse anyone? Perhaps it'll be enough just to @mention him and so he could share his opinion on the matter?

All these changes would be acceptable. As long as you ping them @minijackson since they're the maintainer.

This is a frontend, so just sequoia is probably too generic. If it really makes sense, rename it, otherwise, avoid renaming.

This is a frontend, so just sequoia is probably too generic. If it really makes sense, rename it, otherwise, avoid renaming.

@FRidh the package certainly provides a command line frontend and libraries to use with Python and C (ffi). IMHO, a division between the two wouldn't make sense by naming them differently but it'll better handled on an outputs level. Do you think it'll be wise to add outputs = [ "bin" "dev" ] or something alike? According to my pour experience in packaging for Nix, this is usually meant for packages which are very large in size. As this is not the case, I tend to think it'll be better to leave it as is - one output.