Haskell provider #87
Haskell provider #87
Conversation
| _app: &crate::nixpacks::app::App, | ||
| _env: &crate::nixpacks::environment::Environment, | ||
| ) -> anyhow::Result<Option<crate::nixpacks::phase::InstallPhase>> { | ||
| Ok(Some(InstallPhase::new("sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get install -y libgmp-dev gcc binutils make && stack setup".to_string()))) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can these packages be installed with Nix instead? gcc and make should be able to. What are libgmp-dev and binutils for?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nix doesn’t package any development libraries/headers. libgmp-dev is a floating-point math library needed by the Haskell compiler. binutils has things like ar that are needed to build libraries. make could probably be installed through Nix, but gcc needs to be installed using the same package manager as any libraries you’re trying to use, so that it can find them. Since apt is the only way to get development libraries, gcc needs to be installed through it too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah I see. I thinkkk this is okay. I'm hesitant to start having providers download external dependencies outside of Nix since we lose the ability to pin to a specific version of the Nix store. I think this is fine for now but we should be cautious about encouraging this moving forward.
If more than one provider can be matched at a time (future plans) then it would be nicer if the Haskell provider could depend on the AptProvider and specify the packages that way. Then at least the behaviour is consistent and more controller than just installing w/e packages in the install phase.
|
Can you please fix the conflicts. I can merge once complete |
|
Oh gosh, rebasing broke everything again, didn't it... |
aleksrutins
force-pushed
the
haskell-provider
branch
from
fbcec32 to
900265d
Compare
Fixes #81