| 16 Aug 2021 |
 tomberek | the option to override is powerful and hence dangerous, but there are clear example of wanting it | 02:16:16 |
| tomberek | i had thought that a flake without a flake.lock is very similar to a channel semantically | 02:17:06 |
 @timdeh:matrix.org | yeah, I go back and forth on it. Maybe, in the future, trustix caches will simply disallow them to ensure trust, but we can still keep them 🤷 | 02:17:20 |
 David Arnold (blaggacao) | Atomic pinning could also lead to combinatoric closure explosion, if not any sort of convention can sync upstream flakes effectively. | 02:19:20 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | ... I mean, once flakes get really pervasive. | 02:19:52 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | yeah, the follows thing, as tomberek kinda mentioned, could be seen as the same sort of impurity that channels caused, but in an even sneakier fashion 😅 | 02:21:36 |
| tomberek | is the fact that there is a "follows" somewhere in the chain of flakes somehow visible? is that fact tracked in a ".lock" or something? | 02:22:41 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | If done by the developer then yes, it would be tracked in the upstream lock file. As a user, you can generate your own lock file if you have the repo locally. You can also override stuff on demand with the cli | 02:23:53 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | I just don't like that it changed the upstream flake developers intentions from out under them. When flakes get more pervasive, as David Arnold (blaggacao) points out, I could imagine a lot of github issues opened by naive users not realizing that changing the inputs is the underlying cause of whatever problem they experience | 02:25:07 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | In reply to @tomberek:matrix.org
is the fact that there is a "follows" somewhere in the chain of flakes somehow visible? is that fact tracked in a ".lock" or something? not explicitly. | 02:26:06 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | I mean it's visible in the flake.nix | 02:26:30 |
| tomberek | (okay, just tested it) it's tracked in the flake.lock as well. Well, so the question is: "is the tool useful enough to warrant possible misuse?" | 02:27:37 |
| tomberek | or, "what can we do to mitigate misue?" | 02:28:06 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | In reply to @tomberek:matrix.org
(okay, just tested it) it's tracked in the flake.lock as well. Well, so the question is: "is the tool useful enough to warrant possible misuse?" you mean by the [ ] path syntax? | 02:28:42 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | Maybe some kinda of warning when a user is writing their own flakes, and overrides the inputs of one of their flake dependencies? Something like:
warning, changing inputs can potentially cause rebuilds, and or invalidate trusted packages | 02:31:05 |
| tomberek | The docs have a blurb about "generally not useful". Perhaps add a more direct explanation of the risks? | 02:37:46 |
 @gytis-ivaskevicius:matrix.org | David Arnold (blaggacao): Good luck on your first day at work ;) | 03:41:40 |
| @gytis-ivaskevicius:matrix.org | (They grow up so fast <3) | 03:41:48 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | 😆 | 11:49:46 |
|  @vherrmann:shmerver.de joined the room. | 19:43:44 |
| @vherrmann:shmerver.de | wink wink | 19:45:10 |
| @vherrmann:shmerver.de | What relevance has the inherit inputs statement in the devos template? | 19:45:50 |
| @vherrmann:shmerver.de | Because this line seems to break my config… | 19:46:03 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | Pacman99 ^^ should probably know how inputs are consumed by mkFlake | 19:56:33 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | I would imagine they are passed around to the various bits that need them | 19:56:50 |
| @vherrmann:shmerver.de | yes, in digga/src/mkFlake/default.nix it gets passed to options, fup-adapter and outputs-builder (which is why i don't just look myself) | 19:59:05 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | how exactly does it break your config though? | 20:04:40 |
| @vherrmann:shmerver.de | nrdxp: So I tried to use the overlay from the xmonad flake | 20:06:19 |
| @vherrmann:shmerver.de | Is it ok, to post long pastes in matrix? | 20:06:33 |
| @vherrmann:shmerver.de | or should i use a pastebin? | 20:06:39 |
