Skip to content
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 explicit dependencies on several tools we need #1345

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

copumpkin
Copy link
Member

I left unzip and git implicit, but made sure they had loud comments next to them.

Should fix #1335, #1328, and #1234

Also, regarding the autoconf,

no idea

I left unzip and git implicit, but made sure they had loud comments next
to them.
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ with import <nixpkgs> {};
pkgconfig sqlite libsodium boehmgc
docbook5 docbook5_xsl
autoconf-archive
lsof # Used by the garbage collector to determine what's in use
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The duplication between here and release.nix made me uncomfortable but they do seem pretty duplicatey already.

@domenkozar
Copy link
Member

domenkozar commented Apr 28, 2017

What if Nix is compiled on different machine than it's used? Or is the purpose to hardcode nix store paths for those tools (autotools is magic)?

@copumpkin
Copy link
Member Author

copumpkin commented May 3, 2017

@domenkozar yes, it would include store paths for those tools whenever built by Nix, and they'd thus end up in the runtime closure of Nix (a good thing IMO). And if someone builds it on a non-Nix system we'll just embed non-store paths and nothing is lost.

@edolstra any thoughts? I saw that since I submitted this PR, you already did lsof a little differently, and are not depending on lsof in release.nix. That will probably work in practice on macOS, but it'd be nice to depend explicitly on the package.

Still curious how to do things like builtins.fetchgit in a pleasant manner. On one hand, #693 could be one answer. On the other hand, #520 would allow all these builtin fetchers to be defined outside of Nix, at the cost of a more complicated staged evaluation/build model

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Feb 13, 2021

I marked this as stale due to inactivity. → More info

@stale stale bot added the stale label Feb 13, 2021
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Apr 16, 2022

I closed this issue due to inactivity. → More info

@stale stale bot closed this Apr 16, 2022
@fricklerhandwerk
Copy link
Contributor

@copumpkin I think it's unfortunate the bot was closing pull requests. Are you still interested in working on this? The addressed issues are still hitting Nix beginners.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants