| 28 Oct 2025 |
 hexa | or wait until we have a nixpkgs core team that can make that call? | 17:41:25 |
 Vladimír Čunát | runCommandNoCC will surely have some usage outside nixpkgs, too. | 17:41:50 |
| hexa | it was about e.g. pkgconfig = pkg-config back then | 17:42:07 |
 emily | it wasn't very quiet IMO… it's only ones that were already in 25.05 | 17:45:19 |
| emily | there was discussion about whether to go through a warning cycle for the ones without them or throw immediately | 17:45:41 |
| emily | we could still backtrack and attach warnings to those ones | 17:45:56 |
 @wolfgangwalther:matrix.org | Yeah, I'd say we could do that on a case-by-case basis, if there is reason for a specific case. | 17:46:27 |
| @wolfgangwalther:matrix.org | Was the argument that this should actually persist forever? If so, we'll just need to mark the alias as such instead. | 17:46:53 |
| emily | in practice unstable changes in ways that produce throws all the time I think, in this case it's at least a way that you can handle downstream without breaking compat with any supported release | 17:46:55 |
| emily | which AIUI has been the sticking point historically | 17:47:01 |
| emily | (anyway, this is just trying to prep for structured aliases which will automatically do silent → warning → throw → removed without all the manual work and eval issues wrangling this stuff manually causes right now :/ ) | 17:47:30 |
| hexa | it's not even in 25.05, it was probably removed earlier than that. no everything should be subject to a deprecation cycle IMO. | 17:47:39 |
| emily | to be clear, no Nixpkgs core decision on this | 17:47:50 |
| emily | anyway, putting a warning on runCommandNoCC seems reasonable enough to me | 17:48:21 |
| hexa | oh, it was utillinux 😄 | 17:48:47 |
