| 29 Jul 2021 |
 @timdeh:matrix.org | Seriously considering making it the default in DevOS if there are no major objections and I ever find the time 😆 | 02:54:54 |
 Pacman99 | I generally object because of the compile time and also I agree with eelco on not having a default flake but mainly because of nix compile times for my systems | 03:21:54 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | Sure but as a package manager, a flat space of packages really is ideal, and dram is doing a good job of proving we can adjust to unfavorable conditions. For example, this PR does a good job of addressing the current big objections by simply moving it into a config option, preserving the old behavior for those that disapprove. | 03:39:49 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | I was thinking it could actually be expanded into a list of flakes, so one doesn't have to choose only a single default, but can create a flat space of packages at your fingertips on the fly. | 03:41:06 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | * Sure but as a package manager, a flat space of packages at your fingertips really is ideal, and dram is doing a good job of proving we can adjust to unfavorable conditions. For example, this PR does a good job of addressing the current big objections by simply moving it into a config option, preserving the old behavior for those that disapprove. | 03:42:36 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | * I was thinking it could actually be expanded into a list of flakes, so one doesn't have to choose only a single default, but can create a flat space of packages on the fly. | 03:42:46 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | Would something like that seem more agreeable to you Pacman99? | 03:56:08 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | (not necessarily for DevOS, but just as a general Nix interface) | 05:10:52 |
 @teutat3s:pub.solar | In reply to @blaggacao:matrix.org
Have you put some traces here and there to confirm what pkgs is passed around? I can't infer the error from the few bits of code that I had a chance to look at. How would you do that tracing? I'm not so well versed in nix yet, and didn't find a good example how to use builtins.trace to properly debug which pkgs is passed around | 09:09:03 |
 David Arnold (blaggacao) | teutat3s I'd go with something like builtins.trace pkgs.neovim-unwrapped.version. If that makes sense? At this moment, I don't see how the overrides overlay would silently escape its own application. So I think we'd also have to look elsewhere. If you need to place traces into an input's source code, you can conveniently do so by cloning the source and then append nix commands with e.g. --override-input digga path:/absolute/path/to/local/copy | 12:05:39 |
 @kraftnix:matrix.org | nrdxp you mentioned dram before, it about time i got around to testing it 😄, given that you just made my nix ux 10x better with that nixUnstable/zfs fix I should get on it soon | 13:07:15 |
| @teutat3s:pub.solar | David Arnold: thank you, when using that tracing function here https://git.b12f.io/pub-solar/os/src/branch/teutat3s-develop/modules/terminal-life/default.nix#L39 I see trace: 0.4.4 | 13:33:06 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | Is that good or bad? 😁 | 13:42:50 |
| @teutat3s:pub.solar | don't know yet, but it's not the version 0.5.0 I'm expecting to see - so my conclusion is the overlay is not applied in that module yet | 13:43:36 |
| @teutat3s:pub.solar | Trying to go down the rabbit hole into the digga lib and do some tracing there | 13:44:21 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | You seem to have a strange latest pinned https://git.b12f.io/pub-solar/os/src/branch/teutat3s-develop/flake.lock#L249 | 13:46:38 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | Can you check if that's the correct revision? | 13:46:51 |
| @teutat3s:pub.solar | thanks for taking a look, I'll check | 13:47:04 |
| @teutat3s:pub.solar | https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/commit/0a96dbc8b6bd4874ef0f55ce30ec7bdf1cb09452 indeed seems to be a commit in the release-21.05 branch, not the unstable branch | 13:49:26 |
| @teutat3s:pub.solar | bingo, that seems to be my issue indeed. when setting https://git.b12f.io/pub-solar/os/src/branch/teutat3s-develop/flake.nix#L11 to
latest.url = "nixpkgs/nixos-unstable";
and after doing nix flake update the previous trace shows 0.5.0 as expected 🎉
| 13:53:06 |
| @teutat3s:pub.solar | * bingo, that seems to be my issue. when setting https://git.b12f.io/pub-solar/os/src/branch/teutat3s-develop/flake.nix#L11 to
latest.url = "nixpkgs/nixos-unstable";
and after doing nix flake update the previous trace shows 0.5.0 as expected 🎉
| 13:53:35 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | Maybe you could make a PR to devos since that seems to be the generally better default 😂 | 14:04:28 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | I don't fully understand why it didn't use the default branch or maybe you had an "old" fetch and nix didn't bother to check for new commits? | 14:17:28 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | * I don't fully understand why it didn't use the default branch or maybe you had an "old" fetch of `master` and `nix` didn't bother to check for new commits? | 14:17:54 |
| @teutat3s:pub.solar | https://github.com/divnix/devos/pull/350 | 14:20:17 |
| @teutat3s:pub.solar | In reply to @blaggacao:matrix.org
I don't fully understand why it didn't use the default branch or maybe you had an "old" fetch of master and nix didn't bother to check for new commits? Sounds like a possible explanation, the locked commit was from the release-21.05 branch though | 14:21:16 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | Are the ancillary bumps in the flake.lock harmless? | 16:16:31 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | I usually update a specific input with nix flake lock --update-input <name>, but if they are harmless, I'd be fine with this bump. | 16:18:06 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | * I usually update a specific input with nix flake lock --update-input <name>, but if they have been at least summarily checked, I'd be fine with this bump. | 16:18:32 |
| @teutat3s:pub.solar | It builds fine for me - harmless upon first inspection I'd say | 16:21:09 |
