In reply to @antifuchs:asf.computer
fricklerhandwerk: while I have your attention on the library TOC, do you think it (https://nixos.org/manual/nixpkgs/unstable/#sec-functions-library) should be sorted alphabetically? the order doesn't make much sense to me and that makes it difficult to find things that are missing

For reference documentation I'm also more into alphabetical order and then linking as necessary to building blocks (for example, the proposal in https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/250376).

Other types of documents can order as they want, ofc, since the whole point is to set up an order that makes sense for storytelling, task completion, etc.

In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
I guess just an introductory section giving an overview of all sublibraries would be better

In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
Hmm I think reference docs can also use overviews of its parts, it doesn't really fit into tutorials, guides or explanation

In reply to @nbp:mozilla.org
Wait, this is not 1970?

# Set a fallback default value for SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH, used by some build tools
# to provide a deterministic substitute for the "current" time. Note that
# 315532800 = 1980-01-01 12:00:00. We use this date because python's wheel
# implementation uses zip archive and zip does not support dates going back to
# 1970.
export SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
: "${SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH:=315532800}"

In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
I've drafted a small RFC to use nix.dev as the canonical domain name (but there's also alternatives), would appreciate some quick feedback: https://github.com/nix-rfc-canonical-domain/rfcs/blob/canonical-domain/rfcs/1000-canonical-domain.md

In reply to @delroth:delroth.net
this RFC feels like it should have a mention of the nixos dot com problem :-)

In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
I've drafted a small RFC to use nix.dev as the canonical domain name (but there's also alternatives), would appreciate some quick feedback: https://github.com/nix-rfc-canonical-domain/rfcs/blob/canonical-domain/rfcs/1000-canonical-domain.md

In reply to @asymmetric:matrix.dapp.org.uk
in future work you could list that the implementation of the currently two websites could be unified. or maybe not. but it's a question that i had. you could also declare it as explicitly out of scope.

In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
Sounds good, can you PR that? :D

In reply to @asymmetric:matrix.dapp.org.uk
as future work or as out of scope?

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/a-portable-nix-shell-shebang/35148/2

What do you think? If we want this, anyone interested in seeing it through?