Replies: 2 comments 1 reply
-
|
Not sure if that's possible right now. I wouldn't be opposed to accepting a refactor as long as it still keeps things simple. Maybe we can decouple things, so you can use the 'low-level' stuff directly without relying on the high-level flake-parts layer. Alternatively, maybe there is way for you to use flake-parts just for a subset of your flake (ie., you can use its outputs but without letting it control the flake outputs). cc @roberth |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Also interested as I currently hacked around it in similar way since I’m not even using flakes at work yet (waiting for lazy trees) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Hi & thank you very much for this awesome stuff!
I'm currently wondering: Is it possible to use process-compose-flake as a stand-alone library, without flake-parts?
I imagine something like this:
And then being able to
my-processes upormy-processes downI know you're probably using the module system provided by flake-parts, and decoupling it would require shipping your own module system. But it would also mean, process-compose-flake could be used within flakes not using flake-parts (flake-utils for example).
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions