| 14 Oct 2025 |
 K900 | And definitely not a convertHash sized problem | 16:27:09 |
 emily | AIUI NUL bytes have already been decided to be allowed. | 16:27:22 |
| K900 | Like I think having something of this shape is good long term | 16:27:23 |
 raitobezarius | NUL bytes were merged, yeah | 16:27:33 |
| K900 | But convertHash isn't even the right shape | 16:27:36 |
| raitobezarius | Lix HEAD can have binary data now in strings | 16:27:40 |
| K900 | Yes but it's not a problem for convertHash shaped things | 16:27:46 |
| raitobezarius | (And we eliminated the security issue via a lint) | 16:27:50 |
| emily | it seems totally reasonable to want to be able to convert between lock file formats that use SRI vs. base16 in Nix | 16:28:01 |
| K900 | Yes but also ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh | 16:28:21 |
| raitobezarius | emily: Are you satisfied with the Lix proposal? I'm going to context switch to another thing | 16:28:25 |
| K900 | Like the endpoint will probably be an FOD | 16:28:28 |
| K900 | And FODs accept both | 16:28:34 |
| raitobezarius | Do you know when would you like this to happen? | 16:28:35 |
| K900 | And should continue to accept both IMO | 16:28:39 |
| emily | well, we are here because convertHash is not desired and I said the main way I can imagine decomposing it is to split out SRI/<hash>:<algo> parsing, and to split conversion/deconversion using NUL bytes in strings | 16:28:38 |
| K900 | Like all the uses of convertHash I'm seeing right now are "convert to SRI and shove it in a FOD" | 16:29:17 |
| * raitobezarius is not going to debate the need of convertHash or not for end user code | 16:28:59 |
| emily | I'm ambivalent. I'm not really trying to push for it. I'm just noting that it's something that comes up fairly often and that we've had Nixpkgs hash divergence from attempts at feature detecting it | 16:29:18 |
| emily | the demand is not from me, but there is demand :) | 16:29:23 |
| K900 | Which is objectively useless | 16:29:37 |
| K900 | And could just be "sha256:" + hash | 16:29:43 |
| raitobezarius | OK, I wondered if you as a Nixpkgs core team person, had any idea of a timeline given the demand | 16:29:45 |
| raitobezarius | But unknown timeline works for me, I will register this as low priority (aka when I'm bored) | 16:29:55 |
| emily | sha256 = …; is certainly likely to be banned in Nixpkgs at some point I think | 16:29:57 |
| emily | since people have already put work into treewides/warnings for it | 16:30:06 |
| K900 | It doesn't have to be passed in as sha256 = | 16:30:09 |
| K900 | hash = "sha256:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" works | 16:30:30 |
| K900 | (is this stupid? yes. are we stuck with it? also yes) | 16:30:35 |
| emily | sha256:… is worse IMO, since that is just a pretty arbitrary non-standard format | 16:30:36 |
