Add info for nixos (opam2nix) #14477

bobot · 2019-07-11T09:40:45Z

Mainly add nixos precise packages, for use with @timbertson's opam2nix.

packages/zarith/zarith.1.7/opam

camelus · 2019-07-11T12:11:36Z

Commit: 6efed3f

@bobot has posted 19 contributions.

🌩️ opam-lint errors `6efed3f`

conf-pkg-config.1.1 has errors:
- error 46: Package is flagged "conf" but has source, install or remove instructions
camlzip.1.07 has some warnings:
- warning 37: Missing field 'dev-repo'
coq.8.3 has some warnings:
- warning 25: Missing field 'authors'
- warning 35: Missing field 'homepage'
- warning 36: Missing field 'bug-reports'
- warning 37: Missing field 'dev-repo'
coq.8.4.5 has some warnings:
- warning 25: Missing field 'authors'
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coq.8.4.6 has some warnings:
- warning 25: Missing field 'authors'
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coq.8.4pl1 has some warnings:
- warning 25: Missing field 'authors'
- warning 35: Missing field 'homepage'
- warning 36: Missing field 'bug-reports'
- warning 37: Missing field 'dev-repo'
coq.8.4pl2 has some warnings:
- warning 25: Missing field 'authors'
- warning 35: Missing field 'homepage'
- warning 36: Missing field 'bug-reports'
- warning 37: Missing field 'dev-repo'
coq.8.4pl4 has some warnings:
- warning 25: Missing field 'authors'
- warning 35: Missing field 'homepage'
- warning 36: Missing field 'bug-reports'
- warning 37: Missing field 'dev-repo'
coq.8.5.0 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coq.8.5.1 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coq.8.5.2 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coq.8.5.3 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coq.8.6.1 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coq.8.6 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coq.8.7.0 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coq.8.7.1+1 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coq.8.7.1+2 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coq.8.7.1 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coq.8.7.2 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coq.8.8.0 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coq.8.8.1 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coq.8.8.2 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coqide.8.4.5 has some warnings:
- warning 25: Missing field 'authors'
- warning 35: Missing field 'homepage'
- warning 36: Missing field 'bug-reports'
- warning 37: Missing field 'dev-repo'
coqide.8.4.6 has some warnings:
- warning 25: Missing field 'authors'
- warning 35: Missing field 'homepage'
- warning 36: Missing field 'bug-reports'
- warning 37: Missing field 'dev-repo'
coqide.8.4pl2 has some warnings:
- warning 25: Missing field 'authors'
- warning 35: Missing field 'homepage'
- warning 36: Missing field 'bug-reports'
- warning 37: Missing field 'dev-repo'
coqide.8.4pl4 has some warnings:
- warning 25: Missing field 'authors'
- warning 35: Missing field 'homepage'
- warning 36: Missing field 'bug-reports'
- warning 37: Missing field 'dev-repo'
coqide.8.5.0 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coqide.8.5.1 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coqide.8.5.2 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coqide.8.5.3 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coqide.8.6.1 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coqide.8.6 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coqide.8.7.0 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coqide.8.7.1 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coqide.8.7.2 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coqide.8.8.0 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coqide.8.8.1 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
coqide.8.8.2 has some warnings:
- warning 47: Synopsis (or description first line) should start with a capital and not end with a dot
These packages passed lint tests: conf-expat.1, conf-gcc.1.0, conf-glade.2, conf-gnomecanvas.2, conf-gtksourceview.2, coq.8.9.0, coq.8.9.1, coqide.8.9.0, coqide.8.9.1, lablgtk.2.18.6, zarith.1.7-1, zarith.1.9.1

☀️ Installability check (+2)

new installable packages (2): conf-gcc.1.0 zarith.1.7-1

🌤️ 1 ignored non-opam files:

packages/zarith/zarith.1.7-1/files/absolute_CC.patch

timbertson · 2019-07-11T12:41:29Z

Thanks @bobot ! The os-distribution opam2nix declares is nixpkgs though, not nixos: https://github.com/timbertson/opam2nix/blob/c4c66eda70e40998180eb086aa6dbcc4d92dd83b/src/opam_metadata.ml#L107

(I debated this, but nixpkgs is the name of the package set, so it seemed the most appropriate)

packages/conf-gcc/conf-gcc.1.0/opam

packages/coq/coq.8.8.2/opam

bobot · 2019-07-12T09:26:29Z

There is a problem in my proposition, I followed other packages which uses "nixos" as the name of the os for depext. But opam2nix still uses "nixpkgs". @timbertson What is the right name to use?

I'm going to add for now "nixpkgs" as a copy of "nixos" dependencies it could be removed once the name is choosen.

EDIT: Sorry the comments updated after I send this. My comments is outdated.

bobot · 2019-07-12T10:07:55Z

The os-distribution opam2nix declares is nixpkgs though, not nixos:
(I debated this, but nixpkgs is the name of the package set, so it seemed the most appropriate)

It should be clarified in opam which uses in some way both names: https://github.com/ocaml/opam/blob/master/src/state/opamFormatUpgrade.ml#L24

For now I'm going to duplicate all the lines.

kit-ty-kate · 2019-07-12T11:12:23Z

packages/opus/opus.0.1.2/opam

@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ depexts: [
  ["opus-devel"] {os-distribution = "fedora"}
  ["opus-devel"] {os-family = "suse"}
  ["libopus"] {os-distribution = "nixos"}


Could you remove the nixos line if it's not used instead? (it's definitely not used by opam-depext)

It is true that depext doesn't detect this os. But there is code in opam (for upgrade) which take into account nixos (and prefers it compared to nix). Does people use nixos themselves in depext?

I can remove the nixos line, I have no opinion on the previous question.

Do we have a list of the nomenclature for os-family, os, os-distribution?

I clarify this in #14477 (comment)
You can see how opam detects distribution/os/os-family here: https://github.com/ocaml/opam/blob/c35eb977d19457d3f13b31c1aa60de4fb210865d/src/state/opamSysPoll.ml

What is the ID field in /etc/os-release in NixOS?

packages/zarith/zarith.1.7a/opam

kit-ty-kate · 2019-07-12T11:17:58Z

It should be clarified in opam which uses in some way both names: https://github.com/ocaml/opam/blob/master/src/state/opamFormatUpgrade.ml#L24

This is only the format upgrade module, some parts are not actually used by opam-depext. However, if it were to be used at some point this needs to match the ID field in /etc/os-release (if your distribution has it)

timbertson · 2019-07-12T11:21:48Z

It should be clarified in opam which uses in some way both names: https://github.com/ocaml/opam/blob/master/src/state/opamFormatUpgrade.ml#L24

Uh, that code is just wrong I'm afraid. opam2nix has always used nixpkgs, never nixos. I don't know why this code exists, someone must have gotten confused.

bobot · 2019-07-12T11:23:11Z

Soemone perhaps used opam in nixos directly (like opam on ubuntu, ...). It is a different use from opam2nix.

bobot · 2019-07-12T11:32:04Z

@timbertson I have some problems with os-family. I'm on debian so os-family = "debian", which is used in some depexts, is true for me. OpamSysPoll.variables () defines arch, os, os-distribution, os-version, os-family. Only the first two should be used (white list, instead of blacklist). I'm going to make an MR on opam2nix.

I will recheck this MR.

timbertson · 2019-07-12T11:33:42Z

I'd like to find out where (if anywhere) nixos is actually used. Duplicating deps for both nixos and nixpkgs is just going to get confusing.

@AltGr , It looks like the first introduction of nixos was in ocaml/opam@e236be5. I don't suppose you remember?

From the comments in the related issue "NixOs" was casually mentioned, I'm wondering if that accidental inaccuracy simply made its way into the code unchecked? Or do you know of a tool which actually uses "nixos"? (opam2nix doesn't, it only uses "nixpkgs")

bobot · 2019-07-12T16:48:32Z

I'd like to find out where (if anywhere) nixos is actually used. Duplicating deps for both nixos and nixpkgs is just going to get confusing.

Indeed we should not have both nixos and nixpkgs. And I think @kit-ty-kate is right, we should look at what nixos choose for /etc/os-release, and it is nixos. Opam will by default detect this os-distribution when run on nixos. So I think opam2nix should follow that.

timbertson · 2019-07-12T23:03:07Z

I use fedora with nixpkgs, so opam's builtin depext is always going to do the wrong thing there. Is it ever going to support nixos? I guess doing nix-env -ia <attr> would be the closest analogy.

Maybe using "os" for depexts is just wrong in general, the information you really want is "which package sets are available". For most distros one implies the other, but not when third-party package managers come into it. I assume OSX/Windows would have the same kind of thing, since there are a number of package managers which might be present.

bobot · 2019-07-13T17:47:26Z

I use fedora with nixpkgs, so opam's builtin depext is always going to do the wrong thing there. Is it ever going to support nixos?

Why will it always do the wrong thing? If you use opam directly depexts should use fedora package; if you use opam2nix it will use nixos package. I don't think opam directly but using nix package is a real use case thanks to opam2nix.

timbertson · 2019-11-23T04:41:54Z

Sorry for stalling for so long on this. I have in the past added nixpkgs depexts in this repo, so I was under the impression there was now a mix of both nixpkgs and nixos, and I can't make opam2nix support both. But I've just re-checked, and it looks like the upgrade code has migrated all those to nixos, which makes them not work.

So since the current code doesn't have any effect since nobody's actually using nixpkgs, I'm going to just change opam2nix to look at nixos so that it works 🤷‍♂️. @bobot , want to remove all the nixpkgs lines?

While we're at it, any thoughts on os-family? It's not currently set, maybe that's best for clarity because there aren't any other members of the family.

bobot · 2019-11-25T13:36:11Z

Ok done, the new version 1.7a should not be needed anymore since zarith 1.9.1 is released. But I haven't tested it in nix.

…ll/14477

bobot · 2019-12-04T10:19:25Z

The CI seems to have been canceled. What is the error?

* backport handling of absolute CC * conf-pkg-config for nixos * add conf-gcc

(thanks kit-ty-kate)

Because in nix each package is installed in its own prefix

bobot · 2020-01-17T12:46:42Z

The CI doesn't pass on this MR, but the opam files of the failing packages are not semantically modified. They would fail before this MR.

kit-ty-kate · 2020-01-19T13:07:35Z

The CI was cancelled several times on this PR to avoid freezing the whole CI as it modifies a lot of packages.

Is this PR ready to be reviewed? Is there a consensus?

bobot · 2020-01-20T08:43:54Z

It has already been reviewed, it could be again. I think the most contentious point was the name of the os-distribution (nixos or nixpkgs). It has been accepted as nixos at the end. Consensus reached and implemented.

timbertson · 2020-01-20T09:26:17Z

Agreed, as the source of contention for the distribution name (sorry 'bout that) I'm happy with this PR now 👍

avsm · 2020-02-07T12:54:23Z

packages/conf-gcc/conf-gcc.1.0/opam

+  ["gcc"] {os-distribution = "debian"}
+  ["gcc"] {os-distribution = "ubuntu"}
+  ["gcc"] {os-distribution = "nixos"}
+  ["gcc"] {os-distribution = "archlinux"}


Suggested change

["gcc"] {os-distribution = "archlinux"}

["gcc"] {os-distribution = "arch"}

avsm

Just a minor comment, but can fix that as part of #15789

avsm requested changes Jul 11, 2019

View reviewed changes

packages/zarith/zarith.1.7/opam Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

kit-ty-kate added the needs reporter action label Jul 12, 2019

kit-ty-kate reviewed Jul 12, 2019

View reviewed changes

packages/conf-gcc/conf-gcc.1.0/opam Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

kit-ty-kate reviewed Jul 12, 2019

View reviewed changes

packages/coq/coq.8.8.2/opam Show resolved Hide resolved

bobot force-pushed the for_nix_opam2 branch from 63539d5 to 4bab117 Compare July 12, 2019 10:35

kit-ty-kate reviewed Jul 12, 2019

View reviewed changes

packages/zarith/zarith.1.7a/opam Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

bobot force-pushed the for_nix_opam2 branch 2 times, most recently from 9a1eb2b to ae699e3 Compare November 25, 2019 13:31

bobot requested a review from avsm November 25, 2019 13:36

bobot force-pushed the for_nix_opam2 branch from e3659ee to 6efed3f Compare November 25, 2019 13:40

timbertson added a commit to timbertson/opam2nix that referenced this pull request Nov 26, 2019

look for nixos depexts, not nixpkgs. See ocaml/opam-repository/pu…

373a202

…ll/14477

bobot added 3 commits January 15, 2020 16:13

[Zarith] Help compilation on nixos

ad967bd

* backport handling of absolute CC * conf-pkg-config for nixos * add conf-gcc

Add absolute CC patch in zarith 1.7-1 instead of 1.7

8724bde

Simplify conf-gcc

a3f875c

(thanks kit-ty-kate)

bobot added 4 commits January 15, 2020 16:13

[Depexts] Add nixos information for gtk related packages

4e2afd3

[Coq] replaces %{lib}%/camlp5 by %{camlp5:lib}%

1909d55

Because in nix each package is installed in its own prefix

nixos is an os-distribution

d21e56f

[Zarith] use gcc

470b3bf

bobot force-pushed the for_nix_opam2 branch from 6efed3f to 470b3bf Compare January 15, 2020 15:13

avsm reviewed Feb 7, 2020

View reviewed changes

avsm approved these changes Feb 7, 2020

View reviewed changes

avsm merged commit a59e00c into ocaml:master Feb 7, 2020

avsm mentioned this pull request Feb 7, 2020

remove conf-gcc from zarith #15802

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add info for nixos (opam2nix) #14477

Add info for nixos (opam2nix) #14477

bobot commented Jul 11, 2019

camelus commented Jul 11, 2019 •

edited

Loading

timbertson commented Jul 11, 2019

bobot commented Jul 12, 2019 •

edited

Loading

bobot commented Jul 12, 2019

kit-ty-kate Jul 12, 2019 •

edited

Loading

bobot Jul 12, 2019

kit-ty-kate Jul 12, 2019

kit-ty-kate commented Jul 12, 2019

timbertson commented Jul 12, 2019

bobot commented Jul 12, 2019

bobot commented Jul 12, 2019

timbertson commented Jul 12, 2019

bobot commented Jul 12, 2019

timbertson commented Jul 12, 2019

bobot commented Jul 13, 2019

timbertson commented Nov 23, 2019

bobot commented Nov 25, 2019

bobot commented Dec 4, 2019

bobot commented Jan 17, 2020

kit-ty-kate commented Jan 19, 2020

bobot commented Jan 20, 2020

timbertson commented Jan 20, 2020

avsm Feb 7, 2020

avsm left a comment

	["gcc"] {os-distribution = "archlinux"}
	["gcc"] {os-distribution = "arch"}

Add info for nixos (opam2nix) #14477

Add info for nixos (opam2nix) #14477

Conversation

bobot commented Jul 11, 2019

camelus commented Jul 11, 2019 • edited Loading

🌩️ opam-lint errors 6efed3f

☀️ Installability check (+2)

🌤️ 1 ignored non-opam files:

timbertson commented Jul 11, 2019

bobot commented Jul 12, 2019 • edited Loading

bobot commented Jul 12, 2019

kit-ty-kate Jul 12, 2019 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bobot Jul 12, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kit-ty-kate Jul 12, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kit-ty-kate commented Jul 12, 2019

timbertson commented Jul 12, 2019

bobot commented Jul 12, 2019

bobot commented Jul 12, 2019

timbertson commented Jul 12, 2019

bobot commented Jul 12, 2019

timbertson commented Jul 12, 2019

bobot commented Jul 13, 2019

timbertson commented Nov 23, 2019

bobot commented Nov 25, 2019

bobot commented Dec 4, 2019

bobot commented Jan 17, 2020

kit-ty-kate commented Jan 19, 2020

bobot commented Jan 20, 2020

timbertson commented Jan 20, 2020

avsm Feb 7, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

avsm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

camelus commented Jul 11, 2019 •

edited

Loading

🌩️ opam-lint errors `6efed3f`

bobot commented Jul 12, 2019 •

edited

Loading

kit-ty-kate Jul 12, 2019 •

edited

Loading