| 26 Oct 2021 |
 @teutat3s:pub.solar | I'd like to add an overlay for a nodePackage to overlays/overrides.nix but can't get it to work. How would you do it? Could you help me with an example? | 09:52:27 |
| @teutat3s:pub.solar | My goal is to override its channel to latest | 09:52:52 |
 @timdeh:matrix.org | lib/compat should contain a copy of flake-compat iirc. As far as overrides, in the simple case it's usually just like the examples. Are you trying to override a deeply nested package perhaps? | 13:57:01 |
| @teutat3s:pub.solar | I tried adding nodePackages.dockerfile-language-server-nodejs to the list there, but that errors out (wrong syntax) | 14:04:06 |
| @teutat3s:pub.solar | error: syntax error, unexpected '.' | 14:04:28 |
 @kraftnix:matrix.org | `inherit (channels.latest.nodePackages) dockerfile-language-server-nodejs;`? | 14:32:24 |
 @danielphan.2003:matrix.org | This wouldn't work, you would need to pass it to another attrset.
How about nodePackages = prev.nodePackages // { inherit (channels.latest.nodePackages) dockerfile-language-server-nodejs; }? | 14:45:46 |
| @teutat3s:pub.solar | Daniel Phan: thanks, yayy that worked | 14:50:42 |
 Pacman99 | In reply to @danielphan.2003:matrix.org
This wouldn't work, you would need to pass it to another attrset.
How about nodePackages = prev.nodePackages // { inherit (channels.latest.nodePackages) dockerfile-language-server-nodejs; }? I would also check if nodePackages has its own override semantic, something like nodePackages = nodePackages.override (nfinal: nprev: { }). Because using // with package subsets can sometimes cause problems, I've experienced that when trying to override pythonPackages. | 18:15:50 |
| 27 Oct 2021 |
 @gytis-ivaskevicius:matrix.org | David Arnold (blaggacao): nrdxp alive? | 20:53:13 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | ? | 20:53:36 |
| @gytis-ivaskevicius:matrix.org | up for a call with a president? | 20:53:39 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | whose president 😅 | 20:53:48 |
 David Arnold (blaggacao) | You mean, the dictator? 😎 | 20:54:55 |
|  hexa joined the room. | 23:38:49 |
| hexa left the room. | 23:39:26 |
|  @grahamc:nixos.orgchanged room power levels. | 23:50:04 |
| @grahamc:nixos.org left the room. | 23:50:10 |
|  @mjolnir:nixos.orgchanged room power levels. | 23:51:57 |
| @mjolnir:nixos.org left the room. | 23:52:07 |
| 28 Oct 2021 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | Who's the real dictator around here 🙄 | 01:36:29 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | (please ignore my angry venting 😅) | 01:37:25 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | The changes with regard to this channel's status with respect to nixos hosting have been occasioned by the (heated) discussion in https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/111 | 04:58:31 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | If my opinion is worth anything it would be that the quality of discussion is lamentable. | 05:01:09 |
 yusdacra | In reply to David Arnold (blaggacao)
The changes with regard to this channel's status with respect to nixos hosting have been occasioned by the (heated) discussion in https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/111 It's sad to see that discussion... I'd say the proposal was a fair one, although perhaps instead of a vague RFC like this, something like "disallow anything that is not functionally related to NixOS, nixpkgs, or Nix projects" could maybe work better, considering that is the purpose of nixos.org Matrix if I understand it right. And again, I find it sad that the discussion has gone some bad places... | 07:40:27 |
 b12f | I might be misunderstanding the issue here, but if I may indulge and give my opinion;
As far as I've understood, the primary objection to the private chat room is an ideological one; transparancy and openness is more important than a safe space for a minority community. Though I don't think I value the former any less than anyone else, I think transparency and openness are only valuable if everyone that wants to participate can participate. I hope we don't have to discuss the obvious problems of misogyny and queerhate that the tech community faces. I think having a space in which people can talk freely about these kinds of issues and how they relate to the nix community is an important one, and one that is needed to make sure we don't close ourselves off from decent chunks of the population. Transparency and openness start at the human level.
I agree that the RFC is too vague, but in a different way:
Alternatives
Allow private channels under certain well defined circumstances
Allow private channels with no restrictions
Keep the current ambiguous state of affairs
If I've understood correctly, the "current ambiguous state of affairs" is the existence of one private chatroom as a minority safe space. I might be too far removed from the project, but I don't see how this is a problem, as long as all technical decision making is done in the open and with plenty of room for discussion, which so far has seem to be the case.
| 10:37:32 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | b12f I think the RFC is quite fundamentally an attempt to (re-)balance transparency with privacy. I ultimately beleive it's a trade
-off and balancing act of reason and measure. I think it is without question an important issue, as have some noted, not only at the occasion of (inndeed only one) invite only channel. | 12:53:36 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | I totally acknowledge the need for privacy. And I totally acknowledge that it fundamentally conflicts with transparency. | 12:54:59 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | I might want to add, that after this discussion & discussion in 98, the very principle of "safe-spaces" seems to have turned into it's opposite. It almost seems as if said channel might be a "safe-house", the open, oublic & transparent discussion is a "war zone". | 13:01:01 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | * I might want to add, that after this discussion & discussion in 98, the very principle of "safe-spaces" seems to have turned into it's opposite. It almost seems as if said channel might be a "safe-house", the open, public & transparent discussion is a "war zone". | 13:01:19 |
