[Nix-dev] Re: Python `setuptools' reverted to `builderDefs'

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello,

Michael Raskin <7c6f434c at mail.ru> writes:

> Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> days ago when I updated it and fixed `easy_install'.  I made this choice
>
> I assumed these updates were the core intent of your commit and did my
> best to preserve them.

Thanks.

> Rationale: mandatory huge Python build for everyone is bloatware.
> Building OpenOffice on my notebook is annoying. So I need setuptools etc
> with a small Python build. ViewMTN is written in Python and requires
> many features to be built-in during Python compilation. So I need a
> second Python.

The `setuptools' expression based on `stdenv' could still be called with
`python = pythonFull' or `python = pythonBase'.  What difference does it
make to use `builderDefs' here?

> Build setuptools-builder and read it. It is easier to understand than
> setup.sh conditional sourcing of variables... Entire builderDefs
> endeavor was just about conveniently generating these builders. The idea
> of builderDefs that you have "phases" - command sequences. Each phase
> may require some other phases to be executed before it. The
> implementation details are immaterial - it is better to check that
> generated builder fits your needs.

"Easier to understand" probably depends on who is looking at it.  That
`builderDefs' uses a different style and conventions than `stdenv' and
the "core" of Nixpkgs is one thing that already makes it harder to
understand, for me.

If `builderDefs' has features that are a noticeable improvement over
`stdenv', then I think we should discuss them, one-by-one, and see how
to integrate them in (or merge them with) `stdenv'.  Having two package
styles as different as `stdenv' and `builderDefs' just doesn't sound
right to me.  I would prefer more homogeneity.

Thanks,
Ludo'.