elmPackages.elm-i18next-gen: init at 1.1.0

[ilyakooo0]

Description of changes

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/)
• 23.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.05 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.

[Luflosi]

Is it possible to package it using buildNpmPackage instead?
See #229475.

[ilyakooo0]

Is what i did deprecated? Docs don't indicate that.

[Luflosi]

I wouldn't necessarily say deprecated, maybe more like discouraged. If I understand correctly, some packages can't (yet?) be packaged using buildNpmPackage and still need the old way but if packaging with buildNpmPackage works than that would be preferred.

[ilyakooo0]

@Luflosi done

[Luflosi]

LGTM.
Compiles on x86_64-darwin.

[dotlambda]

Please fix the commit message.

[turboMaCk]

@ilyakooo0 Can you squash commit into one (keeping the message from original one) and resolve conflicts? Once this is done I can merge this.