| 13 Oct 2025 |
 raitobezarius | just trying to understand what is the value proposal of flakes today | 10:02:20 |
| raitobezarius | in that case, yeah, that works | 10:02:36 |
 K900 | This is a special case for paths relative and fully contained in flake root | 10:02:48 |
| K900 | I still have no idea why | 10:02:55 |
 MangoIV | oh, i do not wish to partake in that discussion, I just want to explain to myself why I cannot use this nix code with lix that I can use with upstream nix. | 10:02:56 |
| raitobezarius | it's helpful for us to decide what to do | 10:03:16 |
| raitobezarius | it's not a debate :) | 10:03:18 |
| MangoIV | probably usability issues? you don't have to update the lock file every time something in the repo changes | 10:03:23 |
| MangoIV | that is a really good usability feature, fwiw | 10:03:40 |
| K900 | The short answer is we didn't backport https://github.com/NixOS/nix/pull/10089 | 10:03:43 |
| raitobezarius | it makes sense to me to say that relative paths to a locked node are locked | 10:03:43 |
| K900 | I don't see a use case where a subpath is actually meaningfully useful as its own flake input unless you're doing weird subflake stuff or submodules | 10:04:36 |
| K900 | And you shouldn't do those things | 10:04:46 |
| K900 | And I don't even know if this works with submodules | 10:04:56 |
| K900 | I'm pretty sure this is just some lazy trees nonsense that's three steps removed from the actual rationale | 10:05:14 |
 aloisw | To avoid https://git.lix.systems/lix-project/lix/issues/586 I guess. | 10:05:33 |
