| 22 Sep 2021 |
tomberek | Understood, flakes are not completely done, nor have they moved out of experimental status. So you are in a bit of an awkward moment. I would like to re-do "nix pills" with flakes and nix2.4 cli at some point. | 20:40:21 |
tomberek | yes, short term solution is "--impure" | 20:40:49 |
edrex | @balsoft you mean for the nixGL project, or for me trying to consume it as it is? (assuming the former) | 20:41:03 |
balsoft | In reply to @edrex:matrix.org on the other, they are, in practical terms, largely irrelevant with nixFlakes Most of nix pills are still very relevant with flakes | 20:41:29 |
edrex | i gather it does some install-time introspection on your system to figure out what graphics drivers you are using | 20:41:47 |
balsoft | In reply to @edrex:matrix.org i gather it does some install-time introspection on your system to figure out what graphics drivers you are using Oh, that sounds impure by design then | 20:42:02 |
edrex | i'm honestly not sure tho | 20:42:18 |
edrex | i will try to make an impure flake for it and install that way | 20:42:50 |
balsoft | I guess it would be nicer if it was possible to specify what hardware you need declaratively | 20:43:36 |
balsoft | And perhaps add an auto-detector thing that would work similar to hardware-configuration.nix | 20:43:53 |
balsoft | * And perhaps add an auto-detector thing that would work similar to nixos-generate-config --show-hardware-configuration | 20:44:18 |
edrex | In reply to @tomberek:matrix.org Understood, flakes are not completely done, nor have they moved out of experimental status. So you are in a bit of an awkward moment. I would like to re-do "nix pills" with flakes and nix2.4 cli at some point. yeah, i think that's what's needed. and yeah, i knew what awkwardness I was diving into. My intention is/was to provide some early product testing, which means I need to complain in useful ways/volumes | 20:45:08 |
edrex | In reply to @balsoft:balsoft.ru And perhaps add an auto-detector thing that would work similar to nixos-generate-config --show-hardware-configuration so it would do some runtime detection and use that to configure? somehow it seems like they also want to have all the possible binary graphics drivers as inputs. maybe they're not using the system drivers but matched copies? I'm not sure. | 20:46:59 |
edrex | err, "... and use that to produce a description of the local driver configuration which would be (pure) input to subsequent evaluation runs?" | 20:48:14 |
| 23 Sep 2021 |
| zrsk joined the room. | 23:37:35 |
zrsk | Hi! Someone here knows a way to run nix flake check excluding some outputs? I would like to specify the excluded outputs directly in the cli. The reason is that I want to be able to run that command on my machine which supports cross compilation but I want to exclude that outputs that need it when I run the command in a github workflow (where cross compilation is not supported and where I can't have an aarch64 host). | 23:41:41 |
| 24 Sep 2021 |
niksnut | In reply to @aciceri:nixos.dev Hi! Someone here knows a way to run nix flake check excluding some outputs? I would like to specify the excluded outputs directly in the cli. The reason is that I want to be able to run that command on my machine which supports cross compilation but I want to exclude that outputs that need it when I run the command in a github workflow (where cross compilation is not supported and where I can't have an aarch64 host). Currently there isn't. I guess we could add an --exclude flag or something like that... | 09:45:48 |
balsoft | In reply to @niksnut:matrix.org Currently there isn't. I guess we could add an --exclude flag or something like that... Could we just add --only-eval-current-platform ? I think it would solve the most common issue (which is IFD in checkable outputs) | 09:46:48 |
zrsk | Maybe balsoft's solution is better since the only use case that comes to my mind is when the host's architecture is different, but I don't feel like I can express an opinion.
Any quick workaround to do what I'm trying to do instead? Maybe a sequence of nix check where I manually specifying what want to check?
| 10:23:23 |
zrsk | However I found a discussione about this: https://github.com/NixOS/nix/issues/4265 | 10:24:05 |
balsoft | In reply to @aciceri:nixos.dev
Maybe balsoft's solution is better since the only use case that comes to my mind is when the host's architecture is different, but I don't feel like I can express an opinion.
Any quick workaround to do what I'm trying to do instead? Maybe a sequence of nix check where I manually specifying what want to check?
What exactly are you trying to do? | 10:24:43 |
balsoft | Just run checks for your platform? | 10:24:48 |
balsoft | If so, just nix build all of them | 10:24:53 |
zrsk | I'm trying to write a flake with the configurations of all my machines (using devos as template), included an aarch64 notebook. The problem is that when I run in the Github workflow nix flake check it tells me that "a 'aarch64-linux' with features {} is required to build blah blah..." and it stops.
Before adding the arm machine the workflow correctly worked.
| 10:35:54 |
zrsk | The alternative would be to run several times nix build .#checks.x86_64-linux.<myCheck> with all the needed <myCheck>s. I see two problems:
- The number of my checks could grow in time and I don't want to manually add these lines in the workflow yaml, is there a way to get a flake's outputs? Then with a little bit of shell fu I could obtain the correct
nix build command to run.
- According to the doc
flake check not only builds the checks but also does checks that the flake's outputs are app definitions, nixos modules, overlays, etc... So it would'n be equivalent to just run a sequence of nix build
| 10:48:06 |
zrsk | * The alternative would be to run several times nix build .#checks.x86_64-linux.<myCheck> with all the needed <myCheck>s. I see two problems:
- The number of my checks could grow in time and I don't want to manually add these lines in the workflow yaml, is there a way to get a flake's outputs? Then with a little bit of shell fu I could obtain the correct
nix build command to run.
- According to the doc
flake check not only builds the checks but also does checks that the flake's outputs are app definitions, nixos modules, overlays, etc... So it wouldn't be equivalent to just run a sequence of nix build
| 10:48:47 |
ilkecan | In reply to @aciceri:nixos.dev
The alternative would be to run several times nix build .#checks.x86_64-linux.<myCheck> with all the needed <myCheck>s. I see two problems:
- The number of my checks could grow in time and I don't want to manually add these lines in the workflow yaml, is there a way to get a flake's outputs? Then with a little bit of shell fu I could obtain the correct
nix build command to run.
- According to the doc
flake check not only builds the checks but also does checks that the flake's outputs are app definitions, nixos modules, overlays, etc... So it wouldn't be equivalent to just run a sequence of nix build
To get the flake outputs, there is nix flake show but it is for humans. Recently a PR that adds --json flag is merged but it seems this didn't hit the channels yet. | 11:07:44 |
balsoft | In reply to @aciceri:nixos.dev
The alternative would be to run several times nix build .#checks.x86_64-linux.<myCheck> with all the needed <myCheck>s. I see two problems:
- The number of my checks could grow in time and I don't want to manually add these lines in the workflow yaml, is there a way to get a flake's outputs? Then with a little bit of shell fu I could obtain the correct
nix build command to run.
- According to the doc
flake check not only builds the checks but also does checks that the flake's outputs are app definitions, nixos modules, overlays, etc... So it wouldn't be equivalent to just run a sequence of nix build
- AFAIR you can generate workflow YAML's at runtime. If so, nothing is stopping you from using Nix to generate them with
builtins.toJSON. If you want an example on how to do it for buildkite, see https://github.com/serokell/common-infra/blob/master/flake.nix#L69
| 11:51:40 |
zrsk | In reply to @ilkecan:matrix.org To get the flake outputs, there is nix flake show but it is for humans. Recently a PR that adds --json flag is merged but it seems this didn't hit the channels yet. This is exactly what I was looking for (I mean the --json option) and this is not a problem if it's not in the channels yet since I need it only in the Github workflow where I can directly specifiy which commit of Nix I need. | 12:12:35 |
zrsk | In reply to @balsoft:balsoft.ru
- AFAIR you can generate workflow YAML's at runtime. If so, nothing is stopping you from using Nix to generate them with
builtins.toJSON. If you want an example on how to do it for buildkite, see https://github.com/serokell/common-infra/blob/master/flake.nix#L69
This is even better, the only problem are my Nix skills that are really basic. But I image this could be the right time I learn something new. | 12:14:41 |