Jeff Huffman
Jeff Huffman
This situation might be improved by making the nix CLI default to `path:.` instead of `git+file:.` when `flake.nix` is not added to git and/or is gitignored. The usecase of adding...
> in many situations that would also lead to copying lots of data into the nix store, which i would find to be a regression. people would have to readjust...
Yes, that's what I meant. Indeed, it might be better to just pretend `flake.{nix,lock}` are tracked even when they aren't. I haven't thought it all through, but it does seem...
The problem is that there isn't really a good solution here. If nix copies non-git files generally, then you end up with all kinds of detritus and intermediate files copied...
Interestingly, it works fine if the store path is already realized... ``` $ nix repl --pure-eval Welcome to Nix 2.18.5. Type :? for help. nix-repl> :lf github:nixos/nixpkgs/5633bcff0c6162b9e4b5f1264264611e950c8ec7 Added 16 variables....
Huh. nix 2.19 is apparently exempt. Versions both before and after suffer from the problem, though: ```console $ for v in 2_24 2_23 2_22 2_21 2_20 2_19 2_18 2_17; do...
That would certainly sidestep the problem in a significant number of cases, if I understand the implications correctly, but it still seems to me that there are a fair number...
This really shouldn't break the model. It's essentially selectively applying `nix build`'s `--rebuild` switch to the FOD based on some information in the nix db. The only functional difference is...
> So instead of `hash` I have to remember to change another field that I need to be aware of? > > What is the difference to touching/removing the hash?...
> You said current expressions behaviour wouldn't change, therefore I expected I had to always pass the value… I meant the entire expression, nixpkgs version and all. > The problem...