-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
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
create a real package set #36
Comments
Is there a demo about how to use purenix to write a Nix Derivation? |
@luochen1990 I'm currently working on a blog post for this. It should be the next post in this series. If you want to take a look at this before I publish this post, here are two things to look at:
(Although this issue is just about creating a package set. You may be more interested in #40, which is actually about creating a PureScript nix-builtins library. Or possibly bindings to common things from Nixpkgs.) |
I'm working on an alternative way of using purenix with purs-nix (LovelaceAcademy/nix-templates#173). purenix-packages generates purs-nix build plans when this package-set updates. I just need to be sure if this is the one which is going to be used now. To be able to use it I disabled a few packages that were failing to build (klarkc/purenix-packages#12), right now I'm just trying to have a minimal example with purs 0.15. |
In order for PureNix to be widely usable, we need a real package set for people to depend on.
I have a temporary package set that I've been using while doing development on the core libraries: https://github.com/purenix-org/temp-package-set. But this pins all packages to the
master
branch instead of a release tag.We need a real package set where everything is correctly pinned to a release tag, like the upstream normal PureScript Package Sets. It would be nice to also have all of their CI automation.
Also, before deciding to copy the PureScript Package Set approach, we should take a look at the PureScript Registry and see if it would be possible to use that, since that is what the PureScript community will use going forward (not the PureScript Package Sets). We need to ask the PureScript Registry maintainers if the registry is directly usable by alternative backends.
If anyone is interested in putting this together, please leave a comment and I can create any repos necessary for you to get started setting this up.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: