| 11 Jul 2021 |
 fufexan | In reply to @blaggacao:matrix.org
fufexan maybe you'd have an interest to review https://github.com/divnix/digga/pull/84? (w.r.t. the hm fup issue). sorry, I wasn't online yesterday, but yes, I'll review it :) | 12:06:06 |
| fufexan | David Arnold: is it necessary to use homeConfigurations in the form user@host as described here? https://github.com/divnix/digga/pull/84/files#diff-34527206e391faf315867402419cb48d33a1351f2b245863dd78a7d521cfd9c1R4-R10 | 12:16:39 |
| fufexan | maybe I don't really understand how it works | 12:17:15 |
 David Arnold (blaggacao) | --flake flake-uri[#name]
Build Home Manager configuration from the flake, which must contain the output homeConfigurations.name. If no name is specified it will first try username@hostname and then username
| 12:18:39 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | (hm docs) | 12:18:43 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | So this means that the home-manager utility has knowledge of the current user and hostname. Btw. that's quite similar to divnix/bud here, but I digress. | 12:20:05 |
| fufexan | oh, right. this makes sense now | 12:20:30 |
| fufexan | in that case, it looks fine | 12:20:38 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | I think the key take away is, that we still want to have a "portable" user variant that uses $HOME/.nix-porfile and is completely evaluated without any access to any host config. | 12:21:50 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | For example, without such host related stuff | 12:22:47 |
| fufexan | true, that would be nice to have | 12:23:27 |
|  rosariopulella joined the room. | 15:46:00 |
 @timdeh:matrix.org | I dunno if I like that. I like how the current setup can share configuration between home-manager and nixos, even if using hm standalone. Why would we give that up? | 17:35:07 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | I don't see us giving that up: a hm config can still be created independently of any specific host, and the same config then can still be deployed to any nixos host.
In fact and as far as I can tell right now, the only requirement for a hm config to work portably is to set useUserPackages = false while setting it to true on a nixos host seems to be a good idea. | 21:03:10 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | * I don't see us giving that up: a `hm` config can still be created independently of any specific host, and the same config then can still be deployed to any nixos host.
In fact and as far as I can tell right now, the only requirement for a hm config to work portably on a non-nixos host is to set `useUserPackages = false` while setting it to true on a nixos host seems to be a good idea. | 21:03:49 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | * I don't see us giving that up: a `hm` config can still be created independently of any specific host, and the same config then can still be deployed to any nixos host.
In fact and as far as I can tell right now, the only requirement for a hm config to work portably on a non-nixos host is to set `useUserPackages = false` while on the other hand setting it to true on a nixos host seems to be a good idea. | 21:04:10 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | * I don't see us giving that up: a `hm` config can still be created independently of any specific host, and the same config then can still be deployed to any nixos host.
In fact, and as far as I can tell right now, the only requirement for a hm config to work portably on a non-nixos host is to set `useUserPackages = false` while on the other hand setting it to true on a nixos host seems to be a good idea. | 21:04:32 |
