| 19 Jul 2025 |
 vog | 3 .Java libraries are put into by-name/.../, contrary to what is usual in other languages within Nix (e.g. ocamlPackages, etc.). Should I follow that convention? | 21:34:59 |
| vog | *
- Java libraries are put into
by-name/.../, contrary to what is usual in other languages within Nix (e.g. ocamlPackages, etc.). Should I follow that convention?
| 21:35:09 |
| vog |
- If a package provides github binary release tarballs, should I prefer those, or should I prefer fetchMavenArtifact?
| 21:46:34 |
| vog | *
- Java libraries are not meant to be added to javaPackages, at least libraries like
postgresql_jdbc and jogl are not. Is this intentional, or a bug?
| 21:47:17 |
 Infinidoge 🏳️⚧️ | In reply to @vog:matrix.org
- Java libraries are put into
by-name/.../, contrary to what is usual in other languages within Nix (e.g. ocamlPackages, etc.). Should I follow that convention?
Java libraries are a bit different because they aren't notably intertwined with each other, while languages like ocaml and python have a very intertwined library ecosystem | 21:55:35 |
| Infinidoge 🏳️⚧️ | Java libraries are treated by and large like normal packages both in Nix and elsewhere | 21:55:59 |
| Infinidoge 🏳️⚧️ | In reply to @vog:matrix.org
- Java libraries are not meant to be added to javaPackages, at least libraries like
postgresql_jdbc and jogl are not. Is this intentional, or a bug?
As far as I can tell javaPackages only has openjfx nowadays, and that will likely be moved out later on when separated from the jdk itself | 21:57:58 |
 msgilligan | I was just curious and thought it might be good to have some context. | 22:55:05 |
| vog | Thanks! Regarding my last question, I decided to prefer fetchMavenArtifact, for the simple pragmatic reason that it allows me to easier reference to the sub libraries (junitsocket-common, etc.) separately. | 22:56:48 |
| vog | * Infinidoge 🏳️⚧️: Thanks for your responses! Regarding my last question, I decided to prefer fetchMavenArtifact, for the simple pragmatic reason that it allows me to easier reference to the sub libraries (junitsocket-common, etc.) separately. | 22:57:19 |
| Infinidoge 🏳️⚧️ | Makes sense to me | 22:57:32 |
| 21 Jul 2025 |
|  Pol joined the room. | 15:50:24 |
| 22 Jul 2025 |
| vog | Ok, I finally got around to create the PR. Please review!
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/427538 | 19:18:26 |
| vog | * Infinidoge 🏳️⚧️: Ok, I finally got around to create the PR. Please review!
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/427538
| 19:23:23 |
| 23 Jul 2025 |
|  dish [Fox/It/She] joined the room. | 04:23:15 |
| dish [Fox/It/She] | https://github.com/nixos/nixpkgs/pull/422045 heyo folks, looking for reviews from java maintainers and team on this PR on behalf of the person who opened it(who isn't a matrix user). I'm not a java, expert, and the changes look good to me, but would like more experienced eyes to take a look at it. Thanks so much if anyone does review! | 04:25:35 |
| dish [Fox/It/She] | * https://github.com/nixos/nixpkgs/pull/422045 heyo folks, looking for reviews from java maintainers and team(mostly just more experienced java folks) on this PR on behalf of the person who opened it(who isn't a matrix user). I'm not a java expert, and the changes look good to me, but would like more experienced eyes to take a look at it. Thanks so much if anyone does review! | 04:27:48 |
 emily | hmm, is that policy we should be deciding ourselves, rather than the user? | 12:48:21 |
| emily | we don't bake fontconfig settings into leaf packages | 12:48:26 |
| emily | https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/422043 ah, it does allow overriding like this | 12:49:01 |
| dish [Fox/It/She] | i believe the reason for the pr is so that we allow user overriding but have a sensible default | 12:49:16 |
| emily | right | 12:49:34 |
| emily | the issue indicates they are thinking along the right track and have given due considerations to the trade-offs, so it seems sensible to me | 12:50:04 |
| 26 Jul 2025 |
|  oak 🏳️🌈♥️ changed their profile picture. | 08:27:11 |
| 27 Jul 2025 |
|  @nullcube:matrix.org left the room. | 02:12:00 |
| 28 Jul 2025 |
|  @selckin:matrix.org left the room. | 19:29:57 |
| 1 Aug 2025 |
| msgilligan | Gradle 9 is here: https://docs.gradle.org/9.0.0/release-notes.html | 15:01:43 |
| msgilligan | (Unfortunately, Java 25 support is not coming until Gradle 9.1) | 15:03:06 |
| msgilligan | I just reviewed PR 421047 for Gradle 9 (using rc-1) that looks pretty close to ready. | 19:44:28 |
| msgilligan | It's giving the error:
- Attribute `pkgs.gradle_9-unwrapped` is a new top-level package using `pkgs.callPackage ... { /* ... */ }`.
Please define it in pkgs/by-name/gr/gradle_9-unwrapped/package.nix instead.
Is it possible to get an exception to that "discouraged pattern" in a case like this? If not, what's the best way to resolve the issue?
| 19:46:44 |
