| 11 Dec 2024 |
 dish [Fox/It/She] | In reply to@sandro:supersandro.de
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/development/bower-modules/generic/default.nix#L46 that's bower, not bower2nix | 19:29:08 |
| dish [Fox/It/She] | wait | 19:29:21 |
| dish [Fox/It/She] | im reading that wrong | 19:29:24 |
| dish [Fox/It/She] | i think | 19:29:25 |
 Tomodachi94 (they/them) | Last commit was at the end of June: https://github.com/rvl/bower2nix/commits/master/ | 19:29:37 |
 Sandro 🐧 | you need bower2nix to generate https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/by-name/me/mediagoblin/bower-packages.nix | 19:29:46 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | Any maintainers listed in the package itself? | 19:29:59 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | * Any maintainers listed in the Nixpkgs package itself? | 19:30:17 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | (I'm assuming not because nodePackages, but can't hurt to check) | 19:30:48 |
| Sandro 🐧 | also fetchbower uses bower2nix and that is used | 19:31:09 |
| Sandro 🐧 | also it is aliases in nodePackages to the outside package | 19:31:28 |
| dish [Fox/It/She] | well at least I can delete the entry in the repackaging project(which is why I originally asked about it) | 19:32:14 |
| dish [Fox/It/She] | but there are no maintainers listed for bower2nix | 19:32:26 |
| Sandro 🐧 | I cannot be a maintainer of every unmaintained peer package I somewhere consume... | 19:33:26 |
| Sandro 🐧 | yeah, probably yes | 19:33:36 |
| dish [Fox/It/She] | In reply to@sandro:supersandro.de
I cannot be a maintainer of every unmaintained peer package I somewhere consume... well then who will maintain it? | 20:14:54 |
| Sandro 🐧 | Is there something specific that needs to be fixed? | 20:15:25 |
| dish [Fox/It/She] | the fact that there's still bower stuff in-tree 🥴 it hasn't had a release in 2 years and they say on the website and readme that you should use something else | 20:17:20 |
| dish [Fox/It/She] | there's even people suggesting to turn off SSL verification to fix issues, which is frankly enough for me to consider it deprecated, because if your tool can't cope with SSL certs changing, thats on you | 20:18:46 |
| dish [Fox/It/She] | disabling SSL in 2024 is not a great idea considering how many basic security assumptions rely on it being enabled | 20:19:10 |
| Sandro 🐧 | I mean if we migrate the last thing off it, then we don't break anything when removing it | 20:32:46 |
| 24 Dec 2024 |
|  João Moreira joined the room. | 20:54:10 |
| 25 Dec 2024 |
|  @drupol:matrix.org left the room. | 10:28:24 |
| 26 Dec 2024 |
|  phaer changed their display name from phaer to phaer (8650 at 38c3). | 17:41:52 |
| 27 Dec 2024 |
|  raitobezarius changed their display name from raitobezarius to raitobezarius (DECT: 3538 / EPVPN 2681). | 07:30:26 |
| 30 Dec 2024 |
| raitobezarius changed their display name from raitobezarius (DECT: 3538 / EPVPN 2681) to raitobezarius. | 16:25:31 |
| 31 Dec 2024 |
| phaer changed their display name from phaer (8650 at 38c3) to phaer. | 19:24:01 |
| 1 Jan 2025 |
|  NixOS Moderation Botchanged room power levels. | 14:26:34 |
 oliver.falvai | What is the recommended way to patch a buildNodePackage package where a transitive dependency needs to be upgraded? Applying a patch to the lockfile messes up npmDepsHash, and I guess it also breaks auto updates. Is there a better way?
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/369998/files | 16:54:23 |
|  aidalgol joined the room. | 23:46:04 |
