excalidraw_export: init at v1.1.0

[venikx]

Description of changes

The following npm package makes it possible to convert .excalidraw files to .svg files: https://github.com/Timmmm/excalidraw_export and is used by https://github.com/wdavew/org-excalidraw to handle excalidraw files inside org-mode in Emacs.

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
  • sandbox = relaxed
  • sandbox = true
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 24.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.11 and 24.05 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

---

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

[venikx]

I wasn't sure which way I should provide this package buildNpmPackage or via the node2nix helper. I saw from the commits that some packages are being dropped, and newer ones are added via buildNpmPackage (for example: #309100). Is there a preference to using buildNpmPackage? If yes, I have no issue converting this.

I also noticed that the script I had to run updated all the packages, as they were outdated. Should I perhaps separate these two concerns in different PR's (updating the existing packages (1), then adding the new package (2))?

[tomodachi94]

Is there a preference to using buildNpmPackage? If yes, I have no issue converting this.

Yes, there seems to be consensus among Node-involved Nixpkgs maintainers that we should avoid adding new packages to nodePackages. (c.f. #229475)

[venikx]

Is there a preference to using buildNpmPackage? If yes, I have no issue converting this.

Yes, there seems to be consensus among Node-involved Nixpkgs maintainers that we should avoid adding new packages to nodePackages. (c.f. #229475)

Updated to use buildNpmPackage instead of the node2nix stuff.

[tomodachi94]

Lgtm, thank you ❤️

[venikx]

I was able to also verify the build on my desktop linux, so x86_64-linux and aarch64-linux should both work. Flagged anything darwin related as broken, due to earlier automated builds failing.

[tomodachi94]

Lgtm, thank you for your patience! 💖

[venikx]

@tomodachi94 I'm a bit unfamiliar with the process since it's my first time contributing. Is there something still that is blocking the merge that I can help resolve?

[tomodachi94]

Nope, just my forgetfulness :) Merging now, thank you ❤️