Sender | Message | Time |
---|---|---|
14 Oct 2025 | ||
if i simply use this in my system configuration...is not picked up ... now it uses nix again | 18:49:23 | |
What is "it"? | 18:51:48 | |
Well, I did it like this (an overlay, for the other Nix related packages too)
| 18:53:05 | |
so this is not correct? https://lix.systems/add-to-config/ | 18:54:09 | |
That is correct | 18:54:22 | |
Yra | 18:54:30 | |
Where are you seeing Nix? | 18:54:32 | |
* | 18:54:34 | |
And under what conditions | 18:54:38 | |
I just did a little of my own overlay stuff | 18:54:46 | |
To make it do automatically for all of those packages in that set | 18:54:58 | |
after is switched and only used the one lines to configure lix | 18:55:09 | |
What exact command are you running that tells you it's Nix? | 18:55:28 | |
And what is the output? | 18:55:31 | |
nix --version | 18:56:21 | |
nix (Nix) 2.28.5 | 18:56:40 | |
i used before the lix-module with lix from the cache ... which is not recommended anymore ... | 18:57:26 | |
* i used before the lix-module with lix from the nixpkgs-cache ... which is not recommended anymore ... | 18:57:36 | |
Are you sure you're importing that module into your config? | 18:57:58 | |
What does which nix output? | 18:58:06 | |
/run/current-system/sw/bin/nix | 19:01:21 | |
i tried now two more things ... 1 set nix.package to a random package fails as expected at a check for the version 2 set nix.package to pkgs.lix (which i am not sure if it even exist) is again just using nix | 19:03:04 | |
* i tried now two more things ... 1 set nix.package to a random package fails as expected at a check for the version 2 set nix.package to pkgs.lix is again just using nix | 19:03:57 | |
That's strange | 19:08:09 | |
Are you maybe setting it somewhere else with mkForce | 19:08:09 | |
Can you open your config in a repl and check options.nix.package.definitionsWithLocations ? | 19:08:19 | |
i found that i put nix in the systemPackages ... and i because before changed nix to lix in the overlay it would still use the same one ... sorry for the noise | 19:12:31 | |
15 Oct 2025 | ||
Half baked idea for a new pair of builtins: Evaluating this:
results in
results in an eval error about
hits the Not sure how this would/should interact with Motivation for wanting this is that it allows you to restrict the names available to some expression without forcing that expression to be moved into a different file. Good idea, bad idea, thoughts? | 01:02:23 | |
* Half baked idea for a new pair of builtins: Evaluating this:
results in
results in an eval error about
hits the Not sure how this would/should interact with Motivation for wanting this is that it allows you to restrict the names available to some expression without forcing that expression to be moved into a different file. Good idea, bad idea, thoughts? | 01:03:10 | |
* Half baked idea for a new pair of builtins: Evaluating this:
results in
results in an eval error about
hits the Not sure how this would/should interact with Motivation for wanting this is that it allows you to restrict the names available to some expression (in this case a function, but ideally this'd work for any expression) without forcing that expression to be moved into a different file. Good idea, bad idea, thoughts? | 01:03:50 |