Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Add hydra package and its NixOS module.
This was originally removed in d4d0e44. The intent was not to maintain hydra expression at two places. Nowadays we have enough devs to maintain this despite copy/pasta. This should encourage more people to use Hydra, which is a really great piece of software together with Nix. Tested a deploy using https://github.com/peti/hydra-tutorial
- Loading branch information
3e63180
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1. Now I might finally have my own hydra! (Tried once, had trouble, didn't try again.)
3e63180
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would is be possible to de-duplicate using something like this for the package ?:
3e63180
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
^I wish I could do a plus 2! Yeah that whole "newcomers wonder why
-q
causes downloads" argument doesn't really apply to people installing hydra, I'd think! Plus, the newnix
command will be here soon.3e63180
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's possible to use that, but it means it's downloading package at evaluation time. Something we don't want in nixpkgs. It won't be really that hard to maintain this, I believe.
3e63180
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is certainly better than nothing as we had before, and true that is the policy. I am just forever extremely pessimist about putting any principle above DRY. And so far things like
buildenv
and various setup scripts shared between nix- and nixos have gotten out of sync, IIRC.3e63180
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I strongly believe one day we'll fix NixOS/nix#13
3e63180
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd hope so too, but for this and most other situations I believe import-from-derivation is the most elegant solution, moreso than recursive nix.
3e63180
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, I'm with @Ericson2314 here in case it wasn't obvious. I don't think recursive nix is the solution to this problem, but we need tooling that better supports IFD. Once the new Nix UI starts using attribute paths more, perhaps we can start IFD more often.
3e63180
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In the meantime, might be good to have a could-use-import-from-derivation issue tag or something, to keep track of these.