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
Implement rfc0035: default name
from pname
#49398
Conversation
As suggested by @edolstra
As suggested by @Profpatsch
As suggested by @Profpatsch
ea1d4fb
to
1f7fc09
Compare
Is someone working on the fallout this causes re:pname/name violations? Surprised that wasn't done as part of the PR or explicitly discussed at least.... Anyway happily it seems to be just one package blocking my eval so no big deal :). EDIT: just kidding that's not the only one. |
So far, I have bumped into modemmanager and NetworkManager-l2tp blocking eval on one of my machines:
|
Since NixOS#49398 was merged, name should have pname as a suffix, however this derivation adds '-gnome' as a suffix when it is built with GNOME support. This change makes the derivation more similar to some other Network Manager plugins, where pname is not an attribute.
Just trying to nox-review libmtp I get all this...... Also if certain use of |
This is causing evaluation errors. Before enforcing something like this, make sure you fix all occasions. |
Reverted in abea6f4. |
…ment-rfc0035" to fix eval" Let's see.. This reverts commit abea6f4.
I have implemented a different check, that doesn't seem to have any false positive:
I think I can have all those fixed in a few hours, I'll open a new PR then. |
Awesome!! I'm excited for this-- looking forward to taking advantage of it. The checks were unexpected from the title, but huge +1 for working to clean up all out expressions and helping them stay that way. FWIW I only had one or two additional packages to fix, and I think they've been mentioned or addressed already. (which wasn't expected when I grumpily wrote my earlier comment) In conclusion thank you and +1. :) |
@dtzWill It mostly seems to be a case of people mistaking |
@Synthetica9, or others involved with the change: can we have documentation in the Nixpkgs manual for I'm thinking mainly of details like (if there are any cases) when not to use |
Motivation for this change
Implements NixOS/rfcs#35
Things done
sandbox
innix.conf
on non-NixOS)nix-shell -p nox --run "nox-review wip"
./result/bin/
)nix path-info -S
before and after)