| 8 Mar 2025 |
 WeetHet | I still sometimes catch myself running nix-shell -p npins --command "npins init" instead of nix flake init and have to remove npins directory | 18:15:33 |
| WeetHet | * | 18:16:03 |
 emily | you could use nix(1) without flakes. dunno if that would solve the nix-shell thing. probably not. | 18:17:01 |
| WeetHet | nix-command is too tightly coupled with flakes for me, can you even use nix shell without them? | 18:18:03 |
| WeetHet | Same for nix run | 18:18:12 |
| WeetHet | I sometimes feel like the best course of action for me would be to fork nix 2.3 and work on improving it instead | 18:19:23 |
| emily | yes, they support -f | 18:19:37 |
| WeetHet | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
yes, they support -f It implies impure | 18:19:49 |
| emily | --expr then. (btw, maybe we should move this out of #nix-dev:nixos.org) | 18:20:14 |
| WeetHet | Where | 18:20:21 |
| emily | #users:nixos.org? | 18:20:28 |
| emily | fwiw Nix 2.3 is also buggy. it just has different bugs. | 18:20:32 |
| WeetHet | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
fwiw Nix 2.3 is also buggy. it just has different bugs. It's simpler | 18:20:43 |
| emily | and I suspect Nixpkgs will not support being evaluated with 2.3 for much longer | 18:20:45 |
| WeetHet | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
and I suspect Nixpkgs will not support being evaluated with 2.3 for much longer Small features can be easily added | 18:21:41 |
| WeetHet | And it's so much easier to fix bugs when touching every code path doesn't break some flake-related stuff | 18:22:20 |
