Closed jbgi closed 1 year ago
@jbgi thanks for this!
I think we want one crypto overlay and one haskell.nix overlay.
I kind-of wanted to do that too (using the existing haskell-nix-extra overlay for the haskell-nix stuff), but then it would have induced a new dependency on the crypto overlay being loaded.
So probably a new crypto-haskell-nix
(or haskell-nix-crypto
?) would be the way to go.
@jbgi i think I prefer haskell-nix-crypto
?
@jbgi how much code can we save if we just blatantly override the nix supplied secp256k1
instead of having to deal with our own libsecp256k1
? Yes it's a bit ugly from the naming scheme with the other libraries, but are the hoops we jump through here to deal with secp256k1
vs libsecp256k1
worth it?
After our discussion yesterday, I think we should make an exception here for secp256k1, and just follow the upstream nix naming. This will make things much easier on us. We should do the same for libsodium, and eventually libblst (however that ends up in nixpkgs).
@jbgi let me know what you think. If you agree, this is good to merge I think.
bors r+
so that
crypto
can be imported before haskell.nix overlay (though not currently necessary, but could be if we modify nixpkgs in there in the future), and the newhaskell-nix-crypto
overlay being imported after.