| 14 Jan 2025 |
 K900 | No, you just run the lint twice | 11:36:10 |
 Niklas Korz | sometimes it's the simple solutions that work best😄 | 11:36:40 |
 @lily:lily.flowers | In reply to @grimmauld:grimmauld.de
Don't you need to store a count of how many "disallowed" patterns were in the code before a change to determine whether an addition is adding one of those disallowed patterns? it's ratched per-file and yeah just run before to determine whether it's already ratcheted and if an after lint run needs to be enforced | 11:37:45 |
 Grimmauld (moving to @grimmauld:grapevine.grimmauld.de) | In reply to @k900:0upti.me
No, you just run the lint twice Ah fair. Yeah that works. Damn it, no need to be smart I guess XD | 11:37:44 |
| @lily:lily.flowers | * it's ratched per-file and yeah just run before to determine whether it's already ratcheted which determines if an after lint run needs to be enforced | 11:38:06 |
| @lily:lily.flowers | * it's ratched per-file and yeah just run before-change to determine whether it's already ratcheted which determines if an after-change lint run needs to be enforced | 11:38:22 |
 @infinisil:matrix.org | @grimmauld:grimmauld.de https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs-vet?tab=readme-ov-file#ratchet-checks
| 11:40:20 |
| @infinisil:matrix.org | And https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs-vet/pull/142 would introduce a new one for with
| 11:41:23 |
|  ceverekomu joined the room. | 11:53:38 |
 Perchun Pak [don't ping; dm instead] | funny that I am working on finalAttrs support for buildPython* right now and while I wait for eval results I read this chat
not everything can be implemented using hooks, how could you implement something like this?
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/deb4f62a8ad1971753042cdb34138f739110425f/pkgs/development/libraries/astal/buildAstalModule.nix#L40-L78 | 12:10:04 |
 collares | It would be good to have data on whether finalAttrs is responsible for the huge increase in nixpkgs-review eval time over the last year | 12:24:05 |
| collares | This whole finalAttrs thing really should have been an RFC, given the multiple perf concerns in #119942. But I think people were getting impatient. | 13:13:04 |
| collares | (and I don't remember if there was a good RFC system at the time) | 13:14:03 |
 emily | there was the same bad RFC system that exists now | 14:49:00 |
 @amadaluzia:tchncs.de | has anyone ever bothered packaging the xontribs as of yet? | 14:53:27 |
| @amadaluzia:tchncs.de | for non-xonsh users: a xontrib is an extension for xonsh | 14:54:00 |
| @amadaluzia:tchncs.de | they are basically just python packages but weird | 14:54:23 |
| @amadaluzia:tchncs.de | they use their own xsh format which is python but with xonsh's magic hand
| 14:54:47 |
| @amadaluzia:tchncs.de | https://github.com/74th/xonsh-direnv | 14:55:11 |
| @amadaluzia:tchncs.de | an example xonsh is this | 14:55:15 |
| @amadaluzia:tchncs.de | * | 14:55:39 |
 hexa | has a setup.py, how weird can it be? | 14:55:49 |
| hexa | they probably abuse pypi as a distribution point | 14:56:17 |
| @amadaluzia:tchncs.de | it hasn't treated xonsh users badly | 14:56:29 |
| @amadaluzia:tchncs.de | i know someone who uses xonsh with nix and they have a crazy extraPackages override | 14:56:51 |
| emily | xonsh packaging is already very weird in Nixpkgs I think | 14:56:57 |
| emily | because of PYTHONPATH madness | 14:57:01 |
| @amadaluzia:tchncs.de | * | 14:57:18 |
| @amadaluzia:tchncs.de | what am i looking at lol | 14:58:19 |
| @amadaluzia:tchncs.de | never seen someone let the entire derivation then use it | 14:58:44 |
