| 18 Dec 2025 |
 bake.monorail | * I feel you're being a bit unnecessarily adversarial. this said, having an overlay is a quite different story, since it does not enable you to reuse "private" logic from nixpkgs.
for instance, in the GCC package it's not possible to override the versions without forking (there's a "private" variable determining the versions). | 13:36:13 |
 matthewcroughan | Not at all trying to be adversarial, just stating that if you want something like you're asking for, you should maintain it in your own tree, and this is what other people do too | 13:36:18 |
| matthewcroughan | And that there's nothing too bad about providing toolchains in overlays | 13:36:41 |
| matthewcroughan | like providing toolchains as overlays in nix works well | 13:37:04 |
 emily | (as the person who dropped the most recent batch of GCCs and LLVMs:) yes, it is a meaningful burden on LLVM and GCC maintenance | 13:38:48 |
| matthewcroughan | The fact that it's in a file means it's not private, you could just versions = import ./pkgs.path + "pkgs/development/compilers/gcc/versions.nix"; no? | 13:39:19 |
| matthewcroughan | * The fact that it's in a file means it's not private, you could just versions = (import ./pkgs.path + "pkgs/development/compilers/gcc/versions.nix"); no? | 13:39:34 |
| bake.monorail | even without taking cc-wrapper into account? | 13:39:41 |
| matthewcroughan | * The fact that it's in a file means it's not private, you could just versions = (import ./pkgs.path + "/pkgs/development/compilers/gcc/versions.nix"); no? | 13:39:44 |
