Nix Flakes | 879 Members | |
| 180 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 9 Mar 2025 | ||
| also roberth already gave a good example: | 15:00:17 | |
| "As a brief example, we’ve had a case recently where users were using flake inputs to fetch submodules. This is completely unnecessary since 2.26, and it only worked for them because their working directory happened to coincide with the flake root. Sensitivity to the working directory instead of base directory is bug, so here you see an interaction between the two kinds of stability that we discussed. If we had committed to the 2.25 behavior of flakes by blessing it as stable, we would have to implement a completely unnecessary feature which would even require some architectural changes, removing the separation between fetchTree and the base directory concept, forever making call-flake.nix and the native code that interacts with it more complicated." | 15:00:25 | |
| flakes have reliably had more breaking changes than any other part of the language really | 15:01:14 | |
| lots of weird stuff around subflakes too | 15:01:30 | |
In reply to @elikoga:matrix.orgTbf one could argue it became this way due to widespread propaganda of flakes as an entry point into the nix world which they imho shouldn't be | 15:17:50 | |
| What the fuck else should I be using to lock my lockfile? npins? Pinning by hand? | 15:21:01 | |
| Should I set NIX_PATH myself like a Victorian era peasant? | 15:21:37 | |
| Should I write my own script to do the fetching? | 15:21:51 | |
| What is the path of least resistance to getting a lock file? Using the built in lock file management. I must admit, the shilling can go on my nerves too, but as far as I can tell, that's why there is a low lack of understanding accross the entire nix ecosystem. Getting users acquainted with configuration.nix first may be very easy but it can lead to a large population of users unfamiliar with what they are doing | 15:24:53 | |
| 15:26:44 | ||