Sender | Message | Time |
---|---|---|
5 Jul 2024 | ||
* When I run
Does anyone else reproduce this? It appears to be about this line in
| 22:09:52 | |
6 Jul 2024 | ||
In reply to @philiptaron:matrix.orgWhat arguments are you passing to the script? | 01:04:19 | |
Oh I see it's master | 01:05:40 | |
works on my machine :)
| 01:06:52 | |
I think it’s got to be something about the version of nix. What version of nix are you running? | 01:10:01 | |
I’m on 2.23.1 | 01:10:09 | |
I'm a bit behind 2.18.2. Tried to update the other day and too much stuff broke. I'm not using openssh so I decided it could wait. | 01:11:40 | |
I'll give it another go | 01:12:56 | |
Oh my nix only update to 2.18.4. Just realized there are newer versions available https://search.nixos.org/packages?channel=unstable&from=0&size=50&sort=relevance&type=packages&query=nix | 02:08:04 | |
Ok now on the same version as you and got the same error:
| 02:12:08 | |
Got it! Ok, something for a time when I get computer time. Looks like running a test against the nix versions in nixpkgs would be good. Also adding a flag to keep the json output from nix-instantiate? Gotta diff that to see what changed and when. | 16:21:47 | |
22:58:31 | ||
G'day, I was working on a treewide PR to move packages to by-name & format via nixfmt-rfc-style until I was informed that such PRs are actually discouraged in favor of https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/211832. Are there any other ongoing processes that I can lend a hand with? Or things I can help speed up by making a series of PRs? Otherwise I plan to go forward with adding licenses to most of the packages listed here but I'd be happy to help with higher-priority issues if there are any. | 23:17:48 | |
8 Jul 2024 | ||
10:39:15 | ||
16:16:05 | ||
notashelf: It's a bit tricky unfortunately, but: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs-check-by-name/issues/56 | 17:21:25 | |
notashelf: A bit easier is https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/322537, for which it would be best to join #nix-formatting:nixos.org :) | 17:22:16 | |
17:35:52 | ||
re "Which files are part of a package?", a reasonable start would be just migrating packages that only have default.nix in their directory and nothing else, right? | 17:37:15 | |
emily: Good idea, that sounds decent! | 17:59:00 | |
| 18:10:40 | |
that would work for ~68% of packages | 18:10:49 | |
I imagine the rest are mostly divided into "things that vendor something like a Cargo.toml or a few patches" and "things that are going to have to be manually migrated anyway" | 18:11:25 | |
btw, I assume the intention is to get rid of all the "alternative" callPackage /mkDerivation analogues at some point so that everything can be by-name? | 18:24:10 | |
callPackage works for a host of things (factories, generators, functions of various sorts) that pkgs/by-name rejects -- in particular, the nixpkgs-check-by-name tool rejects them. | 19:12:58 | |
right; I guess I mean for actual derivations | 19:42:07 | |
like Python or Qt stuff | 19:42:10 | |
(I would certainly be happy to see those go, as they obviously don't compose) | 19:42:30 | |
In reply to @philiptaron:matrix.orgI've opened https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs-check-by-name/issues/78 for this issue. Doing some diagnostics now. | 20:20:36 | |
And https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs-check-by-name/pull/79 now too in order to fix it. CC willbush and infinisil . | 20:45:05 |