!UUqahLbShAYkkrXmKs:matrix.org

DevOS

33 Members
Seeking help and geeking out together on https://github.com/divnix/devos & https://github.com/divnix/digga10 Servers

Load older messages


SenderMessageTime
10 Jul 2021
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao) I'm currently transitioning to set up my hm, so this is might be a good time window to share ideas / findings. 🙂 00:54:12
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao)

I'm still not 100% settled on a conlusion, but right now after some discussions with Pacman99 I'm thinking of homeConfigurations in two use cases:

  • an alternative deployment method to, let's say, deploy-rs using home-manager. In this case we want an unaltered user@host config in self.homeConfigurations.

  • a way to port my user to non-nixos machines (user-at-work use case). In this case I'd want a pure user without any host specific configuration and use useUserPackages = false, so that $HOME/.nix-profile is used instead of the system wide /etc/profiles/....

Does that +- make sense?

01:01:00
11 Jul 2021
@fufexan:matrix.orgfufexan
In reply to @blaggacao:matrix.org
fufexan maybe you'd have an interest to review https://github.com/divnix/digga/pull/84? (w.r.t. the hm fup issue).
sorry, I wasn't online yesterday, but yes, I'll review it :)
12:06:06
@fufexan:matrix.orgfufexan David Arnold: is it necessary to use homeConfigurations in the form user@host as described here? https://github.com/divnix/digga/pull/84/files#diff-34527206e391faf315867402419cb48d33a1351f2b245863dd78a7d521cfd9c1R4-R10 12:16:39
@fufexan:matrix.orgfufexanmaybe I don't really understand how it works12:17:15
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao)
 --flake flake-uri[#name]

    Build Home Manager configuration from the flake, which must contain the output homeConfigurations.name. If no name is specified it will first try username@hostname and then username
12:18:39
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao)(hm docs)12:18:43
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao) So this means that the home-manager utility has knowledge of the current user and hostname. Btw. that's quite similar to divnix/bud here, but I digress. 12:20:05
@fufexan:matrix.orgfufexanoh, right. this makes sense now12:20:30
@fufexan:matrix.orgfufexanin that case, it looks fine12:20:38
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao) I think the key take away is, that we still want to have a "portable" user variant that uses $HOME/.nix-porfile and is completely evaluated without any access to any host config. 12:21:50
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao) For example, without such host related stuff 12:22:47
@fufexan:matrix.orgfufexantrue, that would be nice to have12:23:27
@rosariopulella:matrix.orgrosariopulella joined the room.15:46:00
@timdeh:matrix.org@timdeh:matrix.orgI dunno if I like that. I like how the current setup can share configuration between home-manager and nixos, even if using hm standalone. Why would we give that up?17:35:07
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao)

I don't see us giving that up: a hm config can still be created independently of any specific host, and the same config then can still be deployed to any nixos host.

In fact and as far as I can tell right now, the only requirement for a hm config to work portably is to set useUserPackages = false while setting it to true on a nixos host seems to be a good idea.

21:03:10
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao)* I don't see us giving that up: a `hm` config can still be created independently of any specific host, and the same config then can still be deployed to any nixos host. In fact and as far as I can tell right now, the only requirement for a hm config to work portably on a non-nixos host is to set `useUserPackages = false` while setting it to true on a nixos host seems to be a good idea.21:03:49
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao)* I don't see us giving that up: a `hm` config can still be created independently of any specific host, and the same config then can still be deployed to any nixos host. In fact and as far as I can tell right now, the only requirement for a hm config to work portably on a non-nixos host is to set `useUserPackages = false` while on the other hand setting it to true on a nixos host seems to be a good idea.21:04:10
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao)* I don't see us giving that up: a `hm` config can still be created independently of any specific host, and the same config then can still be deployed to any nixos host. In fact, and as far as I can tell right now, the only requirement for a hm config to work portably on a non-nixos host is to set `useUserPackages = false` while on the other hand setting it to true on a nixos host seems to be a good idea.21:04:32
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao) I also think ot might be prohibitive for a "portable" user to depend on nixos host config values of any particular host. However, currently this seems to be our thought model which the PRs propose to rectify. 21:05:50
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao)* I also think it is prohibitive for a "portable" user to depend on nixos host `config` values of any particular host. However, currently this seems to be our thought model which the PRs propose to rectify.21:06:06
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao)* I also think it is prohibitive for a "portable" user to depend on nixos host `config` values of any particular host. However, currently this seems to be our thought model which the PRs seeks to rectify.21:06:41
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao) In fact, I think our current implementation simply ignores the difference between a host-specific application of a hm config and a "portable" variant of the same config and treats them as the same which might result in intricate problems in either use case. 21:08:04
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao)* In fact, I think our current implementation simply ignores the difference between a host-specific application of a `hm` config and a "portable" variant of the same config and treats them as the same which might result in intricate problems in either use case. Such problems manifest when a `useUserPackes = false` - nixos hm module suddenly is used in conjunction with a `userUserPackages = true` config. However, this is currently the case if you would use the `home-manager` cli in good faith with the current inplementation 21:10:45
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao)* In fact, I think our current implementation simply ignores the difference between a host-specific application of a `hm` config and a "portable" variant of the same config and treats them as the same which might result in intricate problems in either use case. Such problems manifest when a `useUserPackes = false` - nixos hm module suddenly is used in conjunction with a `userUserPackages = true` config. However, this is currently the case if you would use the `home-manager` cli in good faith with the current implementation.21:10:57
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao)* In fact, I think our current implementation simply ignores the difference between a host-specific application of a `hm` config and a "portable" variant of the same config and treats them as the same which might result in intricate problems in either use case. Such problems could manifest when a `useUserPackes = false` - nixos hm module suddenly is used in conjunction with a `userUserPackages = true` config. However, this is currently the case if you would use the `home-manager` cli in good faith with the current implementation.21:11:24
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao) Hence I think it is better to provide a fully nixos-compliant hm config as user@host so that good faith use of home-manager cli at least does not do any potential harm. And render a separate user with useUserPackages = mkForce false so that this config is guaranteed to work on non-nixos hosts. 21:13:10
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao)* Hence I think it is better to provide a fully nixos-compliant `hm` config as `user@host` so that good faith use of `home-manager` cli at least does _not_ do any potential harm. And render a separate `user` with `useUserPackages = mkForce false` so that this config is guaranteed to work on non-nixos hosts.21:13:34
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao)* Hence I think it is better to provide a fully nixos-compliant `hm` config as `user@host` so that good faith use of `home-manager` cli at least does _not_ do any potential harm. And render a separate `user` with `useUserPackages = mkForce false` so that such config is guaranteed to work "portably" on non-nixos hosts.21:14:02
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao) Lastly, one might want to deploy a user (normally used on 86_64-linux) on an aarch64 server. user@host would not help, since that would have 86_64-linux. To successfully "portably" use that user on an aarch64 machine, I'd have to either create a dummy aarch64 host or render a user-acrch64 output for homeConfigurations. 21:17:24

There are no newer messages yet.


Back to Room ListRoom Version: 6