| 10 Oct 2021 |
 David Arnold (blaggacao) | The rebind idea was really just an exploration, and it is not a neccessity for bud to function. On the other hand it also was a way to not need any other api, that is, bud itself already fully defines it's api. | 17:11:28 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | In reply to @aynish:sealight.xyz
i would write a PR with this test, since I can reliably reproduce this, but I'm not really sure how to write nix tests? happy to take resuorces and learn if you have any (will also search for examples) I guess a minimal implementation in bud's ./e2e folder would be a good start | 17:12:10 |
 @princemachiavelli:matrix.org | David Arnold (blaggacao): Is there a matrix channel for makes development? I am wondering if exposing the makes package in an overlay would be a good idea or not.... I also want to look into adding aarch64 support. | 20:54:16 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | princemachiavelli aarch64 would be certainly neat. But I guess an overlay is not the right approach. Overlays always bear the risk of breaking some things for somebody. Allowing that to happen would be a huge marketing burden for makes. | 23:28:52 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | I don't think there is a channel yet? /cc kamadorueda ? | 23:29:16 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | I think discussion is currently mainly kept as github issues. | 23:29:37 |
| @princemachiavelli:matrix.org | Thanks. I'll have to learn more about how to use the defaultPackage, defaultApp outputs. I'm in the process of adapting a project that was using devshell to expose various scripts and environment variables. | 23:41:19 |
| 12 Oct 2021 |
 @kraftnix:matrix.org | I remember at some point there was some discussion on easily applying PRs/patches to nixpkgs, was wondering if there is a devos/digga pattern for it? | 19:42:54 |
| @kraftnix:matrix.org | * I remember at some point there was some discussion on easily applying PRs/patches to nixpkgs (or other inputs), was wondering if there is a devos/digga pattern for it? | 19:43:04 |
 @timdeh:matrix.org | flake-utils-plus has its own patching functionality, but irrc digga doesn't currently integrate it | 19:46:49 |
 Pacman99 | We're holding out hope for a patching feature in nix itself | 19:47:13 |
| Pacman99 | https://github.com/NixOS/nix/issues/3920 | 19:47:35 |
| @kraftnix:matrix.org | it would be great in nix itself, I brought it up because I remember seeing a few discussions/issues about it | 19:47:48 |
| @kraftnix:matrix.org | In reply to @timdeh:matrix.org
flake-utils-plus has its own patching functionality, but irrc digga doesn't currently integrate it it would be nice to expose the fups patching functionality in digga/devos, would likely mean I could actually follow nixpkgs directly rather than my own fork | 19:58:45 |
| Pacman99 | I think this post sort of summarizes the problems with fups patching system and why I would be wary of integrating it into digga: https://github.com/gytis-ivaskevicius/flake-utils-plus/pull/90 | 20:01:17 |
| Pacman99 | Its a really cool feature, but it is setup in a rather messy way | 20:02:03 |
| @kraftnix:matrix.org | got it, good to know, guess i'll cross my fingers for a resolution at the nix level. in the meantime, anyone have a good workflow for maintaining a fair number of patches to nixpkgs and keeping it up to date? | 20:07:02 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | a simple derivation that only runs the patch phase should do it | 20:08:00 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | (along with a list of desired patches) | 20:08:14 |
| 14 Oct 2021 |
| Pacman99 | So I think I added bors to divnix/bud, but we need to fix the checks for that to be of any use | 17:25:00 |
| 15 Oct 2021 |
 @gytis-ivaskevicius:matrix.org | hey guys, at some point there was some conversation on flake inputs in toml file | 11:48:59 |
| @gytis-ivaskevicius:matrix.org | i'd like to note long forgotten ini format - it allows using pretty much any characters in its sections | 11:49:33 |
| @gytis-ivaskevicius:matrix.org | 
Download image.png | 11:49:36 |
| @gytis-ivaskevicius:matrix.org | may come in handy | 11:49:49 |
| Pacman99 | INIs main problem is that there is a lack of a standard spec. TOML has exactly one spec that is universal and well maintained. | 16:01:42 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | Nix does have it's own ini like format for the nix.conf already, so I guess we could use that | 16:03:13 |
 ultranix | i didnt understand the desire to move away from a nix-based flake config file, what's wrong with nix | 16:32:29 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | I dunno, I guess people are always looking for a reason to not use Nix, of which unfortunately there are plenty... | 16:38:27 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | It's difficult to install on some systems (darwin), Nix the language has strange syntax and may be unfamiliar especially to users who have never worked in a purely functional language, nix evals can take an infinite amount of time, etc | 16:39:21 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | working professionally with a bunch of Mac OSX users who range from semi to very hostile to Nix, I've become more aware of these issues lately | 16:41:56 |
