Nix Flakes | 869 Members | |
| 180 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 8 Aug 2024 | ||
| this could be relevant https://github.com/NixOS/nix/issues/6633#issuecomment-1479969742 | 08:59:02 | |
| it's kinda while | 08:59:05 | |
| * it's kinda wild | 08:59:08 | |
| if it's not then there's no "it's some mismatch of channels or some version or something" problem and you need to start digging into the build process | 08:59:56 | |
| * if it's not this submodule problem then there's no "it's some mismatch of channels or some version or something" problem and you need to start digging into the build process | 09:00:05 | |
| like maybe the nix-user-chroot thing has sandbox off and nixos has sandbox on | 09:00:31 | |
| and that caused the difference | 09:00:37 | |
| I see, thanks a lot, nonetheless. | 09:01:19 | |
| that's the only thing i can think of without like, your flake code, logs, stuff | 09:02:07 | |
In reply to @dramforever:matrix.orgThis does not seem to be the problem. I have tried with/without sandbox on both machines and on each machine the with/without hashes were the same, but still different across the machines. | 10:18:48 | |
In reply to @dramforever:matrix.orgI can show you the code/logs if you're willing to look into it. | 10:19:12 | |
What is maybe strange a bit is that nix eval --raw and nix eval --raw '.?submodules=1' gives the same output for the Nix only and a different one for the NixOS. | 10:26:00 | |
| 9 Aug 2024 | ||
| 20:28:47 | ||
| 10 Aug 2024 | ||
| 03:50:12 | ||
| 11 Aug 2024 | ||
| Hi, while on my journey to improving in Nix(OS) is there anyone interested in reviewing a Flake of mine? Spotting some anti-patterns and such. | 15:10:23 | |
| For example, the flake contains lots of packages, because I use it to build conditionally different versions. I went with a modular approach:
| 16:41:18 | |
| * For example, the flake contains lots of packages, because I use it to build conditionally different versions. I went with a modular approach:
Which allows to run the packages like | 16:42:45 | |
Is this a bad approach or can I instruct nix flake {show,check} dive into the attributes? | 16:43:42 | |
| * For example, the flake contains lots of packages, because I use it to build conditionally different versions. I went with a modular approach:
Which allows to run the packages like | 16:43:52 | |
| * For example, the flake contains lots of packages, because I use it to build conditionally different versions. I went with a modular approach:
Which allows to run the packages like | 16:44:04 | |
| * For example, the flake contains lots of packages, because I use it to build conditionally different versions. I went with a modular approach:
Which allows to run the packages like | 16:44:28 | |
| * For example, the flake contains lots of packages, because I use it to build conditionally different versions. I went with a modular approach:
Which allows to run the packages like | 16:44:44 | |
| yeah you're not allowed to do that sorry | 17:27:36 | |
| sadly | 17:27:45 | |
| im wondering - are there any experiments on how to have a library system for derivations, dependencies and so on - preferably without suckering into pkgs.lib im looking for stuff to make more easy autoupdaters, service specs, state management | 18:45:55 | |
In reply to @emilazy:matrix.orgI mean, it works enough for my use case. :D | 20:00:59 | |
well, it doesn't work for nix flake check :) | 20:01:34 | |
| Is there a good reason, why it doesn't/cannot work? | 20:02:02 | |
| My Flake is part of a research into libs/pkgs, so I am ok with it not fitting 100% into the infra. | 20:02:50 | |
| Nix doesn't seem to be used much for supporting any version of lib, but the strictness and constraints feel like a good match for that use case. | 20:04:32 | |