pkgx --ensure make uses the system make if poss

[mxcl]

No description provided.

[coveralls]

coverage: 89.373% (-1.0%) from 90.34%
when pulling bc9be97 on ensure
into 118c17e on main.

[mxcl]

There are edge cases that this does not handle, ottomh: pkgx -e +git would not work.

Also, importantly, pkgx -e deno^2 will not check the version of the thing we are ensuring. So maybe this should not be added in fact.

A mash script would be fairly trivial to write and would at least make it clear that the feature is more flakey.

[jhheider]

Also, importantly, pkgx -e deno^2 will not check the version of the thing we are ensuring. So maybe this should not be added in fact.

this could range from easy to fully impossible to ensure, depending on the package in question. even parsing and hoping if the package supports --version|-V would be fraught.

which suggests that maybe this should take a [binname] rather than a [pkgspec]. at least ensuring a binary is on the path is reasonably trivial.

$ pkgx --ensure=make,git,clang make foo

[mxcl]

We could add something to package.yml to parse versions but that’s a lot of additional metadata for a feature that is only “nice”. So yeah your suggestion is better, though I am leaning towards this should be a mash script.

$ pkgx mash pkgx/fallback git clone […]

[jhheider]

it's a lot of additional characters, but since it's maximally useful in scripts and README's, it's far from impossible.

[mxcl]

Additionally, foo --version is hardly a well defined API though we could mandate a check when we build new versions to ensure we still can parse it ofc.

[mxcl]

k I added mash pkgx/ensure, usage:

$ mash pkgx/ensure git --version
$ eval "$(mash pkgx/ensure +git)"

So I will revert this due to it not being possible to do properly with the full range of pkgx use. The mash script is much simpler too.