| 30 Jul 2021 |
 @timdeh:matrix.org | In reply to @d4hines:matrix.org
On the topic of escape hatches and onborading, do you think I could get a lot of the benefit of devos by basically using it as a way of interacting with home-manager on, say, an Arch linux installation? I did this once in an ad-hoc fashion. I never pushed any code, but I had an old Arch box that that I didn't have physical access to, to install NixOS, so I used the DevOS home-manager feature and some trickery to pull values from my NixOS config, such as much zshrc and tmux.conf directly into my home-manager profile unmodified. I even got my exact same xmonad config working by simply dumping it into the proper place. | 22:51:03 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | In reply to @d4hines:matrix.org
On the topic of escape hatches and onborading, do you think I could get a lot of the benefit of devos by basically using it as a way of interacting with home-manager on, say, an Arch linux installation? * I did this once in an ad-hoc fashion. I never pushed any code, but I had an old Arch box that that I didn't have physical access to, to install NixOS, so I used the DevOS home-manager feature and some trickery to pull values from my NixOS config, such as my zshrc and tmux.conf directly into my home-manager profile unmodified. I even got my exact same xmonad config working by simply dumping it into the proper place. | 22:51:21 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | * I did this once in an ad-hoc fashion. I never pushed any code, but I had an old Arch box that that I didn't have physical access to install NixOS on, so I used the DevOS home-manager feature and some trickery to pull values from my NixOS config, such as my zshrc and tmux.conf directly into my home-manager profile unmodified. I even got my exact same xmonad config working by simply dumping it into the proper place. | 22:52:51 |
 @kraftnix:matrix.org | I also used home-manager + nix on arch before I moved to NixOS, but I was using classical nix and was very new to nix back them, my home-manager config was an extremely simple modification of my old dotfiles repo, so i was wondering how easy devos will make the whole experience. it's good to hear you got xmonad working, makes me want to try this more so i can red pill some of my friends | 22:52:58 |
| @kraftnix:matrix.org | In reply to @kraftnix:matrix.org
given the non-deterministic nature of the issue i'll repeat the build again quite a few times until i'm sure its resolved so i'm pretty sure it's all working now, it ran 10 times with no failures, thanks gtrunsec for the help 😀 | 23:25:31 |
| 31 Jul 2021 |
|  @princemachiavelli:matrix.org joined the room. | 02:16:48 |
 David Arnold (blaggacao) | kraftnix: w.r.t. test-driver.py: let me know what you've concluded. I'm currently doing a refactoring ("over the eons") with tfc to get a better testing experience. Any insights will be really helpful. w.r.t. home-manager, there are now "portable" profiles that work completely without setting up any nixos hosts at all. This addition makes the use case easier where you want to start onboarding all-out with hm but without any NixOS. Here is the implementation in digga | 02:56:20 |
|  yusdacra changed their profile picture. | 17:17:58 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | I can't remember... did we ever decide to export profiles, so one can use another devoser's profiles from their own configuration? | 23:47:55 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | David Arnold: Pacman99 ? | 23:50:18 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | * David Arnold: Pacman99 ? ^^ | 23:50:28 |
| 1 Aug 2021 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | No, only modules or whole configs. | 01:10:27 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | I'm not sure if sharing profiles would be really a good idea, in theory. Modules are the "generics" and profiles the concrete implementation. I find it to be a good balance between convenience and responsibility to pass "ownership" of any concrete implementation to the user. | 01:12:49 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | It might be just the right amount of an "entry level" challange to onboard users. | 01:13:43 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | But that presumes a world where modules are crafted in such ways that they can best serve that "onboarding challange". | 01:14:39 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | * It might be just the right amount of an "entry level" challenge to onboard users. | 01:24:34 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | * But that presumes a world where modules are crafted in such ways that they can best serve that "onboarding challenge". | 01:24:45 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | The problem with sharing profiles is that we might drift into the real of mkForce, which isn't terrible, but surely a "semantic deviation". | 01:26:00 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | * The problem with sharing profiles is that we might drift into the realm of `mkForce`, which isn't terrible, but surely a "semantic deviation". | 01:26:52 |
 Pacman99 | Yeah I proposed the idea a while ago but I don't really support it anymore for that reason | 01:32:18 |
| Pacman99 | Profiles doesn't really make sense to share | 01:32:48 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | Maybe we can orchesteate a momentum to produce more "shareable" modules, though. That is ones that where carefully made with an downstream user in mind. | 01:40:46 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | * Maybe we can orchesteate a momentum to produce more "shareable" modules, though. That is: ones that are carefully made with an downstream user in mind. | 01:41:06 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | * Maybe we can initiate a momentum to produce more "shareable" modules, though. That is: ones that are carefully made with an downstream user in mind. | 01:41:27 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | * Maybe we can initiate a momentum to produce more "shareable" modules, though. That is: ones that are carefully made with a downstream user in mind. | 01:41:56 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | If a module implements a "styled"/"fashioned" or "enhanced" upstream module, it can still made be generically available through an enable flage, where the profile then just implements the enable = true. | 01:45:37 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | * If a module implements a "styled"/"fashioned" or "enhanced" upstream module, it can still made be generically available through an `enable` flage, where the profile then just implements the `enable = true`. Does that make sense? | 01:45:49 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | I mean, we could just let it be known that profiles are more opinionated and users should pull the source and modify them directly if they want to change them. I just think it could help onboarding more than anything to have a working configuration an import away, and if you mature and decide to change it, just rebase, modify or start from scratch from there. | 02:43:07 |
| @timdeh:matrix.org | Or we could simply make a wrapper around all profiles, to pass mkDefault to all values, making them trivially overridable. | 02:44:12 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | In reply to @timdeh:matrix.org
Or we could simply make a wrapper around all profiles, to pass mkDefault to all values, making them trivially overridable. That could be an interesting idea 👍 | 02:48:12 |
