@bendlas, that trace message is a bad idea. Please remove that message again. The unexpected output is very confusing and it's somewhat likely to break scripts that interpret nix-env output in some way (as it happened to me).

Since we already are at the point of strong wordings: The actual bad Idea here is to have a script interpret stderr.
Also, if you're seeign that message, it means that you're installing wine with staging patches: An experimental technology. You should be able to deal with warnings, when handling experimental technology.
That said, I'll do away with the warning, when coming home this evening, to avoid any further confusion ...

The actual bad Idea here is to have a script interpret stderr.

Whatever. This is irrelevant to my point. Nixpkgs should not print out random warnings that users don't know how to interpret.

if you're seeign that message, it means that you're installing wine with staging patches

No, I am not:

$ nix-env -qa --meta >/dev/null
trace: WARNING: wine staging is not yet at 3.0, using unstable

Whatever. This is irrelevant to my point.

OK, I'd appreciate your sticking to your point in your argument, then.

No, I am not

Right, it means that you're evaluating wine staging, not necessarily building or installing it, which is a larger problem. I have already agreed to take it out and I'll do so.

OK, I'd appreciate your sticking to your point in your argument, then.

You misunderstood. My point was (and still is) totally valid. I just don't want to argue with you about it. I just want you to remove that stupid trace message you've added.

Right, it means that you're evaluating wine staging, not necessarily building or installing it, which is a larger problem.

No kidding.

@peti Well, it is easy to forget/not know this message will happen on many operations, not just on actually installing this version (which makes any trace message completely unrelated to what user was doing and therefore annoying). Now @bendlas can join the ranks of those who know it. (I guess there is now no disagreement about actual code changes)

Hey, dude, I think I need to explain something to you. I have come to know you as a long-time member and prolific contributor, that's very valuable to the community and I respect you for that. This doesn't mean, that I'll put up with your attitude. So your options to choose from are:

a) make me do what you want me to do, or
b) antagonize me.

Both at the same time will be hard to pull off with me and many other people as well, as you certainly know. Besides, it's immoral.

So, since I already agreed with you to do a), I really don't get why you couldn't resist throwing more shade and trying to provoke me further.

How would you feel, if you agreed with someone and that person answered:

No kidding.

?
Feels shitty, doesn't it?

No need for an apology or further provocations, but in the future, please realize that as a senior member, you're setting the tone in the community and people are looking to you for guidance.

4e8cd90

I suppose I should have made a greater effort to be polite when I wrote my initial comment. I was in the middle of doing something else entirely, and the appearance of that warning interrupted me. I was annoyed and impatient, and I didn't do a good job reporting the problem to you. As I said, I was in a hurry and had my mind elsewhere. Apparently, you perceived my initial message as rude and responded in kind. I am sorry for provoking those negative feelings; I did not mean to sound disrespectful.

Accepted!
Thanks for letting me know your insight.
Sorry for having interrupted your workflow.