| 8 Jul 2022 |
 matthewcroughan - nix.how | I'm not saying this cannot be expressed without flakes, nor should it, but something to keep in mind | 17:12:08 |
 Alyssa Ross | I don't understand at all the point you're trying to make | 17:12:24 |
| matthewcroughan - nix.how | how people will ultimately use this stuff will be as a flake, since nixos-hardware doesn't have any flake-compat | 17:12:57 |
| Alyssa Ross | you can use nixos-hardware just fine using any of the mechanisms you'd use to evaluate nix code | 17:13:01 |
| Alyssa Ross | I personally use a git subtree | 17:13:06 |
| Alyssa Ross | you could also use niv | 17:13:09 |
| Alyssa Ross | or a channel | 17:13:15 |
| Alyssa Ross | literally any of the existing mechanisms | 17:13:21 |
| matthewcroughan - nix.how | should there be a packages output to the nixos-hardware flake? | 17:15:06 |
| matthewcroughan - nix.how | it could contain all of the kernel packages for a given hardware name | 17:15:39 |
| Alyssa Ross | it should definitely expose its packages without having to go through a NixOS evaluation, yeah, that's another improvement I'd like to see | 17:15:46 |
| matthewcroughan - nix.how | packages.linuxPackages_visionfive | 17:15:50 |
| Alyssa Ross | (and it should do it in a non-flakes way as well) | 17:15:56 |
| matthewcroughan - nix.how | baggage | 17:16:03 |
| matthewcroughan - nix.how | to do things in a non-flake way is baggage, but do you see the conflict? | 17:16:13 |
| Alyssa Ross | again, i have no idea what you mean | 17:16:34 |
| matthewcroughan - nix.how | to avoid using flakes for this, is going to make the resulting code much more complex and harder to read | 17:16:49 |
| matthewcroughan - nix.how | less simple | 17:16:51 |
| matthewcroughan - nix.how | but we have to do that if we want to get out of nixpkgs whilst flakes aren't stable | 17:17:00 |
| matthewcroughan - nix.how | so therefore, why not just let this stuff exist in nixpkgs until flakes are stable? | 17:17:13 |
| Alyssa Ross | I disagree that it will make it any more complicated | 17:17:17 |
| matthewcroughan - nix.how | what does tomberek think? | 17:17:43 |
| Alyssa Ross | "why not?" because this separation has worked fine, for years, without flakes | 17:17:52 |
| matthewcroughan - nix.how | I think flakes are great, and make everything simpler. Therefore the kind of code I want to write is code that avoids using non-flake concepts. | 17:18:07 |
| Alyssa Ross | that's nice | 17:18:23 |
| Alyssa Ross | unfortunately not everybody agrees with you | 17:18:28 |
| matthewcroughan - nix.how | That's a bad fragmentation. | 17:18:41 |
| Alyssa Ross | I agree | 17:18:49 |
| Alyssa Ross | the situation that we find ourselves in wrt flakes was entirely avoidable | 17:19:10 |
| matthewcroughan - nix.how | You say you want kernels to exist outside of Nixpkgs. Fine. IMO the simplest way to do it is to make nixos-hardware better. But if we're still having to avoid flakes, then I just give up. | 17:19:11 |
