Thanks :) Going to leave this open for now, until I get a chance to look at the GHCJS stuff.

Sure thing. Leaving out the cabal changes could probably be made to work
for haste too, so give me a shout if you want to explore nix without ghcjs.
:-)
On 10 Feb 2015 21:58, "Joel Burget" notifications@github.com wrote:

Thanks :) Going to leave this open for now, until I get a chance to look
at the GHCJS stuff.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#19 (comment)
.

By the way, why did you symlink your nixpkgs to the current directory? Is that a typical way of working?

That's the way I do it. I like to have -I . so that you can symlink both
local packages under development and nixpkgs in one go. You can install
nixpkgs to a path globally (I think in ~/.nix-something) but I think is
more flexible as you can point different projects at different nixpkg
versions (e.g. for ghcjs).

On 28 February 2015 at 19:20, Joel Burget notifications@github.com wrote:

By the way, why did you symlink your nixpkgs to the current directory? Is
that a typical way of working?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#19 (comment)
.

Regards,
Ben Ford
ben.fordnz@gmail.com
+447540722690

Pardon me if I'm being daft, @Boothead , but this simply exposes react-haskell to nix, doesn't force it's usage, right?

You are correct @Aspidites. Nothing is forced, just consider it a strong hint ;-)