New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
top-level: exclude all makeScope attributes from splicedPackagesWithXorg #68525
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
The list of attributes passed to builtins.removeAttrs is missing overrideScope'. Using the packages makeScope attribute to isolate the scope's packages is robust against further additions to makeScope.
Neat! Where is this |
Here: Lines 194 to 204 in 05764a9
|
Can we do makeScope = newScope: f:
let rawSet = f self;
self = rawSet // {
newScope = scope: newScope (self // scope);
callPackage = self.newScope {};
overrideScope = g: lib.warn
"`overrideScope` (from `lib.makeScope`) is deprecated. Do `overrideScope' (self: super: { … })` instead of `overrideScope (super: self: { … })`. All other overrides have the parameters in that order, including other definitions of `overrideScope`. This was the only definition violating the pattern."
(makeScope newScope (lib.fixedPoints.extends (lib.flip g) f));
overrideScope' = g: makeScope newScope (lib.fixedPoints.extends g f);
packages = f;
include rawSet;
};
in self; and then do splicedPackagesWithXorg = splicedPackages // splicedPackages.xorg.rawSet; Yes, |
Good call. That change could be taken a step further. What do you think about: { # ...
newScope = scope: newScope (rawSet // scope);
callPackage = newScope self;
} # ... |
Or even further. I'm not suggesting that the following extension is appropriate, but it's a thought worth sharing: { # ...
newScope = scope: newScope (rawScope // rawScope.protected or {} // scope);
callPackage = newScope (self // rawScope.protected or {} // rawScope.private or {});
} # ... |
Hello, I'm a bot and I thank you in the name of the community for your contributions. Nixpkgs is a busy repository, and unfortunately sometimes PRs get left behind for too long. Nevertheless, we'd like to help committers reach the PRs that are still important. This PR has had no activity for 180 days, and so I marked it as stale, but you can rest assured it will never be closed by a non-human. If this is still important to you and you'd like to remove the stale label, we ask that you leave a comment. Your comment can be as simple as "still important to me". But there's a bit more you can do: If you received an approval by an unprivileged maintainer and you are just waiting for a merge, you can @ mention someone with merge permissions and ask them to help. You might be able to find someone relevant by using Git blame on the relevant files, or via GitHub's web interface. You can see if someone's a member of the nixpkgs-committers team, by hovering with the mouse over their username on the web interface, or by searching them directly on the list. If your PR wasn't reviewed at all, it might help to find someone who's perhaps a user of the package or module you are changing, or alternatively, ask once more for a review by the maintainer of the package/module this is about. If you don't know any, you can use Git blame on the relevant files, or GitHub's web interface to find someone who touched the relevant files in the past. If your PR has had reviews and nevertheless got stale, make sure you've responded to all of the reviewer's requests / questions. Usually when PR authors show responsibility and dedication, reviewers (privileged or not) show dedication as well. If you've pushed a change, it's possible the reviewer wasn't notified about your push via email, so you can always officially request them for a review, or just @ mention them and say you've addressed their comments. Lastly, you can always ask for help at our Discourse Forum, or more specifically, at this thread or at #nixos' IRC channel. |
I marked this as stale due to inactivity. → More info |
@nspin I am sorry I never replied. some people do have |
I marked this as stale due to inactivity. → More info |
The list of attributes passed to
builtins.removeAttrs
is missingoverrideScope'
. Using thepackages
makeScope
attribute to isolate thescope's packages is robust against further additions to
makeScope
.Motivation for this change
To remove the
xorg
scope's auxiliary attributes from the scope provided bycallPackage
.Things done
sandbox
innix.conf
on non-NixOS)nix-shell -p nix-review --run "nix-review wip"
./result/bin/
)nix path-info -S
before and after)Notify maintainers
cc @