[RFC 0083] Common interface package sets

rfcs/0083-common-interface-package-sets.md

@@ -0,0 +1,268 @@
+---
+feature: common-interface-package-sets
+start-date: 2020-12-19
+author: Frederik Rietdijk (@FRidh)
+co-authors:
+related-issues:
+---
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+The Nixpkgs package set consists of a large amount of packages of which a
+significant amount of grouped into sub package sets. This RFC recommends a
+common interface for these package sets.
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+The Nixpkgs package set consists of a large amount of packages of which a
+significant amount of grouped into sub package sets. Sets exist for various
+languages, frameworks and plugins.
+
+They are typically grouped together for one of the following two reasons:
+- clarity, e.g. because they're written in the same language or framework;
+- necessity, e.g. for compatibility reasons.
+
+Over time different methods for defining package sets were created. Currently
+multiple methods are in use in Nixpkgs and pull requests are opened to modify
+sub package sets interfaces from one kind to another. Not only is this confusing
+for users but it also causes trouble; in some cases overriding of derivations
+inside a set is not possible or cross-compilation is broken.
+
+This RFC thus aims to unify the package sets to a common interface for the
+following reasons:
+- simplify usage of package sets and reduce confusion surrounding them;
+- single approach for dealing with overrides;
+- handle variants of a package set;
+- ensure cross-compilation works.
+
+Often one also wants to build an environment with an interpreter or main program
+and some additional packages or plugins. This RFC will therefore also recommend
+a function each package set should offer for doing so, when appliceable that is.
+
+## Related issues
+
+TODO: refer to these issues in correct place.
+
+- Common override interface derivations https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/67
+- Make PHP packages overrideable https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/107044
+- Change in emacs interface https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/107152
+- Package set for Octave https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/65398#issuecomment-743926570
+- Python package set is not overrideable
+  https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/44426
+- Support `overrideScope'` in Python package set
+  https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/105374
+- Common `overrideArgs` for sub package sets
+  https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/46842. May be resolved using
+  `overrideAuto` in https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/67.
+
+# Detailed design
+[design]: #detailed-design
+
+We will now look in more detail at what a common interface should offer.
+
+## Attribute name of the package set: `fooPackages` versus `foo.pkgs`
+
+Two different interfaces are common in Nixpkgs when referring to package sets:
+- `fooPackages`
+- `foo.pkgs`
+
+TODO which one to pick? Consider also overriding of the interpreter or main program and how that should propagate. Consider also the function for generating variants, where you need to have a name under which your interpreter or main program is available in the subpackage set.
+## Variants
+Often multiple variants of a package set need to be created. E.g., in case of
+emacs or Python there are different versions of the program and each of them
+should have their own package set. For this reason it is important that one can
+easily create a new variant
+
+```nix
+fooPackagesFor = foo: import ./foo-packages.nix { ... };
+fooPackages_3_6 = fooPackagesFor foo_3_6;
+```
+
+## Set overriding
+It should be possible to override packages in a sub package set and have the
+other packages in the set take that override into account. To that end, a scope
+is created
+
+```nix
+lib.makeScope pkgs.newScope (self: with self; {
+  ...
+}
+```
+
+that can be overridden using `overrideScope'`
+
+```nix
+fooPackages_3_6.overrideScope' overrides;
+```
+
+where `overrides` is of the form
+
+```nix
+(final: previous: { ... })
+```
+
+In case one uses overlays with Nixpkgs, one could now make the overrides
+composible using
+
+```nix
+fooPackages_3_6 = fooPackages_3_6.overrideScope' overrides;
+```
+
+## Package overriding
+
+Now that it is possible to override a set, a common interface to overriding the
+packages inside the set is needed as well. This is treated in [RFC
+67](https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/67).
+
+## Cross-compilation
+
+For cross-compilation it is important that `callPackage` in the sub package set
+has access to the spliced versions of the sub package set. Until recently, there
+were no spliced sub package sets in Nixpkgs, but support was added for Python
+utilizing the `makeScopeWithSplicing` function. There is [room for
+improvement](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/105374).
+
+An important aspect for making this work is that, when constructing the package
+set, it needs to know its own top-level attribute.
+
+...
+
+
+To support nested package sets, the full attribute path is needed, including
+dots.
+
+```nix
+`fooPackages_3_6.subFooPackages_2_5`
+```
+
+## Single function for creating a package set
+
+To ease the creation of a package set, a single function is proposed for
+creating a set given a main program and an attribute name.
+
+
+```nix
+makePackageSet = ...
+```
+
+
+A package set can then be created
+
+```
+fooPackagesFor = foo: callPackages
+
+fooPackages =
+
+```
+
+## Composing an environment
+
+Thus far we considered building a package set and overriding it. Somewhat
+orthogonal yet still commonly needed, is a method to compose an environment of
+packages inside the package set.
+
+Starting with Haskell and later adopted by other package sets is a
+`withPackages(ps: [...])` function that allows you to compose an environment with chosen
+packages from the set.
+
+This RFC recommends each package set should have such a function, in case it is
+appliceable. An example of where it would not make sense to include such a
+function is in case of a [Qt package
+set](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/102168) because you would not be
+interested in having a Qt with libraries during runtime and nothing else.
+
+Haskell introduced the function as part of its package set, that is, one uses
+`haskellPackages.ghcWithPackages (ps: [...])`. Some time later Python added such
+function, but as part of the interpreter `python3.withPackages(ps: [...])`.
+Since then, many other sets also added `withPackages` as part of the
+interpreter or main program.
+
+Should the `withPackages` function be part of the main program or the package
+set? If we override the package set using `overrideScope'`, then the updated
+package set is visible to attributes of the package set, that is
+
+```
+(fooPackages.overrideScope' overrides).withPackages
+```
+
+and
+
+```
+(fooPackages.overrideScope' overrides).foo.withPackages
+```
+
+will consider the updates.
+
+### `fooPackages` versus `foo.pkgs` again...
+
+TODO
+
+Unfortunately, having `withPackages` as part of the main program makes it
+somewhat more difficult to use it when overrides are needed as well. One would have to write
+
+```nix
+(foo_3_6.pkgs.overrideScope' overrides).foo.withPackages(ps: [...])
+```
+Indeed, the `withPackages` of the main program inside the sub set needs to be used. Using
+
+TODO the actual recommendation
+
+# Examples and Interactions
+
+## Create a package set
+
+The following example shows how to create a package set
+
+...
+
+## Override a package set
+
+The following example shows how to override a package set
+
+```nix
+fooPackages.overrideScope' (final: previous: {
+  ...
+})
+```
+
+## Compose an environment
+
+The following example shows how to compose an environment
+
+TODO
+
+```
+fooPackages.foo.withPackages(ps: [...])
+```
+
+or
+
+```
+fooPackages.withPackages(ps: [...])
+```
+
+## Deprecating old interfaces
+
+It it is recommended that package sets adopt the new interface and deprecate
+their current one. For compatibility reasons it may not be possible to use the
+recommended functions to construct the new interface, requiring custom
+solutions.
+
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+By not recommending a common interface, package sets may continue to have
+different interfaces and change even in opposite directions.
+
+# Alternatives
+[alternatives]: #alternatives
+
+# Future work
+[future]: #future-work
+
+- Document the recommended interface in the Nixpkgs manual.
+- Adopt the recommended interface in existing package sets in Nixpkgs.
+- Encourage tools that create package sets, e.g. from lock files, to also adopt
+  this interface.