| 22 Oct 2025 |
 Randy Eckenrode | * I want to move Darwin to the by-name-overlay for 26.05. | 01:29:10 |
| Randy Eckenrode | Switch from lib.packagesFromDirectoryRecursive to the overlay and get rid of the randomly ordered list of callPackage. | 01:29:15 |
 emily | if me and Wolfgang do our jobs then literally everything will be in by-name by 26.05 | 01:29:41 |
| Randy Eckenrode | And kill the stupid gas stuff. I’ve been putting off reworking GNAT to use the normal assembler and add aarch64-darwin support. | 01:29:44 |
| emily | so I wouldn't spend too much time on it :) | 01:29:53 |
| Randy Eckenrode | Darwin would be in pkgs/os-specific/darwin/by-name? | 01:30:08 |
| emily | pkgs/by-name/darwin rather | 01:30:21 |
| emily | * pkgs/by-name/da/darwin rather | 01:30:24 |
| emily | (although tbh some of what's in darwin.* could just be at the top-level) | 01:30:34 |
| Randy Eckenrode | And that would be a scope with another by-name under it? | 01:30:35 |
| emily | (comparable stuff for Linux isn't scoped) | 01:30:37 |
| Randy Eckenrode | Linux-specific stuff probably out to be scoped. | 01:30:51 |
| Randy Eckenrode | * | 01:31:02 |
| emily | I don't think so – lots of packages only work on one platform | 01:31:13 |
| emily | there's no reason to make that the primary hierarchical axis of organization | 01:31:25 |
| Randy Eckenrode | Yeah, but the Linux kernel, headers, etc probably ought to be in a Linux scope. | 01:31:31 |
| emily | (cf. the mess that is the pkgs/ organization) | 01:31:36 |
| emily | the Linux kernels are scoped into linuxPackages etc. | 01:31:43 |
| emily | as well as packages that vary per-kernel | 01:31:46 |
| emily | but stuff like the Xcodes and openwith – really no reason for them to be under darwin.* | 01:32:24 |
| Randy Eckenrode | I also really want to make darwin.binutils almost an alias for llvmPackages.bintools. | 01:32:29 |
| Randy Eckenrode | Or trash (except there’s an XDG-compliant trash package already). | 01:32:49 |
| emily | yeah, trash probably just needs a disambiguating name | 01:33:14 |
| emily | which is a preexisting problem :) | 01:33:18 |
| Randy Eckenrode | If I wanted to add a Swift package set, what would be the way to go about it to get ahead of the by-name stuff? | 01:33:47 |
 Katalin 🔪 | package sets aren’t affected by by-name | 01:34:13 |
| Katalin 🔪 | only top-level packages | 01:34:29 |
| emily | I would just use the makeScopeWithSplicing stuff and ensure that everything is a callPackage with no arguments I suppose | 01:34:41 |
| emily | scroll up :) | 01:34:45 |
| emily | ^ | 01:34:53 |
