| 18 Dec 2025 |
 matthewcroughan | If it's "not that hard" as you say, then why not just keep an overlay? Not that hard either? | 13:31:55 |
 bake.monorail | I think compilers could be an exception due to their role in enabling building other software. but yeah, I feel like we're delving more on opinions rather than hard facts about what's specifically hard. | 13:32:16 |
| matthewcroughan | I mean, provide it as an overlay or flake then if you feel that way? | 13:32:48 |
| matthewcroughan | https://github.com/autc04/Retro68 | 13:32:49 |
| matthewcroughan | check that out | 13:32:52 |
| matthewcroughan | the maintenance status of retro68 makes it pretty valid for inclusion in nixpkgs instead of being its own flake though | 13:33:11 |
| matthewcroughan | whereas an out-of-date unmaintained thing is less relevant for nixpkgs inclusion | 13:33:30 |
| matthewcroughan | still shows how you can provide all that infra just fine outside of nixpkgs though | 13:33:46 |
| matthewcroughan | Like, overlays, overrideAttrs, override, all provide you with ways of achieving what you want to do, you can't keep everything forever in the tree | 13:35:37 |
| bake.monorail | I feel you're being a bit unnecessarily adversarial. this said, having an overlay is quite different story, since it does not enable you to reuse "private" logic from nixpkgs.
for instance, in the GCC package it's not possible to override the versions without forking (there's a "private" variable determining the versions). | 13:35:42 |
| bake.monorail | * I feel you're being a bit unnecessarily adversarial. this said, having an overlay is a quite different story, since it does not enable you to reuse "private" logic from nixpkgs.
for instance, in the GCC package it's not possible to override the versions without forking (there's a "private" variable determining the versions). | 13:36:13 |
| matthewcroughan | Not at all trying to be adversarial, just stating that if you want something like you're asking for, you should maintain it in your own tree, and this is what other people do too | 13:36:18 |
| matthewcroughan | And that there's nothing too bad about providing toolchains in overlays | 13:36:41 |
| matthewcroughan | like providing toolchains as overlays in nix works well | 13:37:04 |
 emily | (as the person who dropped the most recent batch of GCCs and LLVMs:) yes, it is a meaningful burden on LLVM and GCC maintenance | 13:38:48 |
| matthewcroughan | The fact that it's in a file means it's not private, you could just versions = import ./pkgs.path + "pkgs/development/compilers/gcc/versions.nix"; no? | 13:39:19 |
| matthewcroughan | * The fact that it's in a file means it's not private, you could just versions = (import ./pkgs.path + "pkgs/development/compilers/gcc/versions.nix"); no? | 13:39:34 |
| bake.monorail | even without taking cc-wrapper into account? | 13:39:41 |
| matthewcroughan | * The fact that it's in a file means it's not private, you could just versions = (import ./pkgs.path + "/pkgs/development/compilers/gcc/versions.nix"); no? | 13:39:44 |
| emily | yes | 13:39:45 |
