| 8 Mar 2025 |
 emily | because if so, WeetHet, I'm not sure you're measuring something that worthwhile for system configs | 18:06:13 |
| emily | a single byte change in the flake will throw away the entire eval cache | 18:06:22 |
 raitobezarius | I agree this is a cheat but this is user visible | 18:06:23 |
| emily | right. well it matters for nixpkgs# for sure | 18:06:30 |
| emily | for system configs … meh | 18:06:37 |
 WeetHet | I don't know why this happened, really. It's not even evaluation catching probably since --impure evaluation is still faster | 18:07:20 |
| WeetHet | * | 18:07:30 |
| WeetHet | * | 18:08:03 |
| WeetHet | There's also an issue of me having nixpkgs being pinned to a github rev in the flake registry which works fine with flakes but causes a noticeable delay with a message "fetching github<...>" when using nix-shell even if it's already fetched | 18:12:41 |
| WeetHet | It doesn't actually fetch it, but for some reason takes an unreasonable time checking for it ig | 18:13:09 |
| WeetHet | Overall, all this just makes non-flake UX just miserable enough for me to use flakes even though I really don't want to | 18:14:13 |
| WeetHet | I still sometimes catch myself running nix-shell -p npins --command "npins init" instead of nix flake init and have to remove npins directory | 18:15:33 |
| WeetHet | * | 18:16:03 |
| emily | you could use nix(1) without flakes. dunno if that would solve the nix-shell thing. probably not. | 18:17:01 |
| WeetHet | nix-command is too tightly coupled with flakes for me, can you even use nix shell without them? | 18:18:03 |
| WeetHet | Same for nix run | 18:18:12 |
| WeetHet | I sometimes feel like the best course of action for me would be to fork nix 2.3 and work on improving it instead | 18:19:23 |
| emily | yes, they support -f | 18:19:37 |
| WeetHet | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
yes, they support -f It implies impure | 18:19:49 |
| emily | --expr then. (btw, maybe we should move this out of #nix-dev:nixos.org) | 18:20:14 |
| WeetHet | Where | 18:20:21 |
| emily | #users:nixos.org? | 18:20:28 |
| emily | fwiw Nix 2.3 is also buggy. it just has different bugs. | 18:20:32 |
| WeetHet | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
fwiw Nix 2.3 is also buggy. it just has different bugs. It's simpler | 18:20:43 |
| emily | and I suspect Nixpkgs will not support being evaluated with 2.3 for much longer | 18:20:45 |
| WeetHet | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
and I suspect Nixpkgs will not support being evaluated with 2.3 for much longer Small features can be easily added | 18:21:41 |
| WeetHet | And it's so much easier to fix bugs when touching every code path doesn't break some flake-related stuff | 18:22:20 |
| WeetHet | The other option would be to take Lix's code and tear everything flake-related out of it | 18:27:01 |
| raitobezarius | In reply to @weethet:catgirl.cloud
The other option would be to take Lix's code and tear everything flake-related out of it we push it to its own libflakes and then someday we will see how to split it up (while providing it as part of the some normal distribution of Lix obviously) | 18:28:06 |
| WeetHet | Nix 2.3 has 40k sloc, while 2.26 has 89k | 18:44:02 |
