| 25 Mar 2024 |
 Philip Taron (UTC-8) | I'm testing out https://github.com/maralorn/nix-output-monitor/pull/123 and running into the same effect that you did, maralorn. But a quick grep of the project doesn't reveal what's outputting the "Finished at" text. | 16:09:18 |
| Philip Taron (UTC-8) | Ah, found it. lib/NOM/Print.hs line 3 | 16:12:02 |
| Philip Taron (UTC-8) | * Ah, found it. lib/NOM/Print.hs line 179 | 16:12:13 |
| 26 Mar 2024 |
| Philip Taron (UTC-8) | Yeah, that PR just doesn't work, and I don't think I can get it to work. | 19:27:58 |
| Philip Taron (UTC-8) | maralorn: I did open a PR against the GitHub repo for some strings. https://github.com/maralorn/nix-output-monitor/pull/131
I didn't see a way to open a PR against your forgejo instance.
| 19:28:26 |
 maralorn | In reply to @philiptaron:matrix.org
maralorn: I did open a PR against the GitHub repo for some strings. https://github.com/maralorn/nix-output-monitor/pull/131
I didn't see a way to open a PR against your forgejo instance.
Yeah, forgejo is promissing federation but they haven’t released it yet. | 19:39:52 |
| 27 Mar 2024 |
|  @admin:nixos.org joined the room. | 13:51:04 |
| @admin:nixos.org left the room. | 13:51:12 |
| 29 Mar 2024 |
|  SebTM joined the room. | 06:59:37 |
| 30 Mar 2024 |
| Philip Taron (UTC-8) | I got nix-output-monitor running in nixos-rebuild: https://github.com/philiptaron/flock.nix/commit/c854ed766f1ac4a19beb437756bce7a0c0319a9b | 19:48:02 |
| Philip Taron (UTC-8) | I'm sure there are better ways, but this was my way. | 19:48:19 |
| 31 Mar 2024 |
|  Miles Dyson joined the room. | 23:08:48 |
| Miles Dyson | This looks neat. | 23:27:01 |
| 3 Apr 2024 |
|  bandithedoge joined the room. | 21:59:30 |
| 6 Apr 2024 |
| bandithedoge | In reply to @philiptaron:matrix.org
I got nix-output-monitor running in nixos-rebuild: https://github.com/philiptaron/flock.nix/commit/c854ed766f1ac4a19beb437756bce7a0c0319a9b that's really nice, i suppose it'd be just as simple to do with home-manager and nix-darwin, right? | 21:54:54 |
| bandithedoge | definitely way better than my hacky script that just pipes the output of whatever rebuild command into nom
https://github.com/bandithedoge/dotfiles/blob/master/home%2Fdefault%2Foi%2Foi.nim#L68-L75 | 21:56:06 |
| 11 Apr 2024 |
|  @shalokshalom:kde.org joined the room. | 20:38:24 |
| @shalokshalom:kde.org | i really love your icon :D | 20:38:39 |
| maralorn | Thanks! | 20:42:04 |
| @shalokshalom:kde.org | Is there any downside to using this project by default?
Like, could I mindlessly recommend using it, and it would be fine
Rephrasing my question: Why is this not yet the standard NixOS installation..?
| 23:31:14 |
| 12 Apr 2024 |
| maralorn | Well | 07:59:12 |
| maralorn | It is not a drop in replacement for nix. | 08:00:04 |
| maralorn | It does not support all nix commands. | 08:01:48 |
| maralorn | And tabcompletion is worse. | 08:02:06 |
| maralorn | So making it the standard would be problematic. | 08:02:31 |
| @shalokshalom:kde.org | i see | 08:03:32 |
| maralorn | * Replacing the nix command by nom is an unsolved problem. | 08:04:07 |
| maralorn | Besides that recommend away it's nearly always the better choice IMO. | 08:05:00 |
| @shalokshalom:kde.org | Considering those are the only two reasons, I think 'not being able to support all commands' can be solved by simply doing a fallback | 08:14:41 |
| @shalokshalom:kde.org | and tabcompletion would remain as the only holdback? | 08:14:59 |
