| 17 Jul 2021 |
 Narice | Hey! I cannot build my system after doing a flk update right now, is there something going on right now? I posted an issue on GH with all the info ;) | 15:10:26 |
 fufexan | David Arnold: is this how I should proceed with the fup docs as well? https://github.com/divnix/digga/blob/develop/doc/mkFlakeOptions.md | 15:45:51 |
| fufexan | also, for inline synopsis https://github.com/divnix/digga/blob/develop/src/generators.nix#L4-L10 | 15:46:41 |
 David Arnold (blaggacao) | In reply to @fufexan:matrix.org
David Arnold: is this how I should proceed with the fup docs as well? https://github.com/divnix/digga/blob/develop/doc/mkFlakeOptions.md fufexan this is nixos-autogenerated file from the module system, so it's not the relevant syntax for library docs. | 15:52:10 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | The nixdoc "syntax" is:
/* This function does the thing a number of times. */ myFunction = # The thing to do thing: # How many times to do it n: doNTimes n thing
| 15:53:08 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | * The nixdoc "syntax" is:
```
/* This function does the thing a number of times. */
myFunction =
# The thing to do
thing:
# How many times to do it n: doNTimes:
n thing
``` | 15:53:51 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | It also recognizes (lines or paragraphs?) That start with Example: or Type: in the docstrings and will render them apropriately. | 15:54:56 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | I think the key difference with the current synopsis (e.g. in the generators) are the argument comments. | 15:55:51 |
| fufexan | I haven't seen much of that format in nixpkgs or anywhere | 15:56:05 |
| fufexan | that's why I was asking | 15:56:22 |
| Narice | I added some info on the GH issue: https://github.com/divnix/digga/issues/87
I'm right now wondering if it's an upstream issue, did anyone try to update their system in the last two days? | 16:20:05 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | I also suspect that this could be an upstream issue, on the other hand, since we've been actively developing digga's develop I wouldn't want to exclude the possibility that it's a regression of some sort. I couldn't find anything telling in the traceback, though. | 18:42:35 |
| 18 Jul 2021 |
| Narice | However I'm using the main branch of digga :/
So I'm on 0.2.0 right now which is supposed to be quite stable | 15:57:21 |
| Narice | Ah yes, that is not related to digga, something broke upstream, I went back to the nixpkgs repos I had pinned before the update and bam it worked | 16:04:32 |
| Narice | Yes, they changed something upstream 8 days ago right where it fails for me 🤦
I'll investigate if there is already an issue and post one if that's not the case then | 16:08:46 |
| Narice | Alright, someone is going to file a PR to resolve this issue! That's awesome! | 17:00:26 |
| Narice | Thanks David Arnold for the confirmation that this was most probably an upstream thing! | 17:01:34 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | fufexan: Here is my (very) WIP Docs PR for digga https://github.com/divnix/digga/pull/90/files | 20:33:27 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | * fufexan: Here is my (very) WIP Docs PR for digga https://github.com/divnix/digga/pull/90/files (it's basically just copying over files from devos) | 20:34:10 |
 @teutat3s:pub.solar | Did anybody else notice issues with caches when trying out the develop branch of devos?
I can see multiple substituters entries in /etc/nix/nix.conf the last one probably overriding the first one.
The last entry only contains the following (notably https://cache.nixos.org is missing here):
substituters = https://nrdxp.cachix.org https://nix-community.cachix.org
trusted-public-keys = nrdxp.cachix.org-1:Fc5PSqY2Jm1TrWfm88l6cvGWwz3s93c6IOifQWnhNW4= nix-community.cachix.org-1:mB9FSh9qf2dCimDSUo8Zy7bkq5CX+/rkCWyvRCYg3Fs=
| 20:36:37 |
| @teutat3s:pub.solar | Noticed something strange must've happened when the devshell started building gcc from source :D | 20:36:57 |
| @teutat3s:pub.solar | * Noticed something strange must've happened when the devshell started building gcc from source 😀 | 20:37:18 |
| @teutat3s:pub.solar | * Did anybody else notice issues with caches when trying out the develop branch of devos?
I can see multiple substituters entries in /etc/nix/nix.conf after running nixos-rebuild switch, the last one probably overriding the first one.
The last entry only contains the following (notably https://cache.nixos.org is missing here):
substituters = https://nrdxp.cachix.org https://nix-community.cachix.org
trusted-public-keys = nrdxp.cachix.org-1:Fc5PSqY2Jm1TrWfm88l6cvGWwz3s93c6IOifQWnhNW4= nix-community.cachix.org-1:mB9FSh9qf2dCimDSUo8Zy7bkq5CX+/rkCWyvRCYg3Fs=
| 20:38:26 |
| @teutat3s:pub.solar | Maybe related to https://github.com/divnix/devos/commit/6c25e77f6fc3e4c0fa0eb009aae48a817b6bac51 ? | 20:38:57 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | https://github.com/divnix/devos/commit/6c25e77f6fc3e4c0fa0eb009aae48a817b6bac51 is supposed to be persisted on a per-repo basis. | 20:45:12 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | Using extra-* is supposed to behave well with existing configuration. | 20:45:33 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | However, this line adds optional configuration to your nixos system. | 20:46:07 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | It was supposed to not conflict, but maybe we need to revise it's implementation? | 20:47:03 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | (btw. the cache that is advertised there is just a tiny bit short of its existence, yet) 🤣 | 20:49:54 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) |
the last one probably overriding the first one.
If this is what seems like being happening, we probably need a better implementation of nix.extraOptions, in general *and in nixpkgs. Sure we need to provide an "anti-corruption-layer" in the meantime within digga.
| 20:51:44 |
