Skip to content
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

documentation: Don't set localSystem which doesn't exist #216

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Aug 17, 2020

Conversation

roberth
Copy link
Contributor

@roberth roberth commented Aug 16, 2020

This is safe to remove, because it is not referenced anywhere in
nix-darwin.
It should have been discovered way earlier, but a bug in the
module system has allowed this value to be defined until
NixOS/nixpkgs@fd75dc8

This is safe to remove, because it is not referenced anywhere in
nix-darwin.
It should have been discovered way earlier, but a bug in the
module system has allowed this value to be defined until
NixOS/nixpkgs@fd75dc8
@roberth roberth mentioned this pull request Aug 16, 2020
4 tasks
Copy link
Contributor

@marsam marsam left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks a lot! I can confirm it fixes the evaluation

Copy link
Owner

@LnL7 LnL7 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks.

Having these kind of breaking api changes are a bit problematic for projects outside of nixos however. It would be great if this was tied to the release cycle for example.

@LnL7 LnL7 merged commit d5f26b4 into LnL7:master Aug 17, 2020
@roberth
Copy link
Contributor Author

roberth commented Aug 17, 2020

This only happened with nixpkgs unstable. Users on nixpkgs 20.03 were not affected. Does that count as "tied to the release cycle" or did you have something else in mind?

@LnL7
Copy link
Owner

LnL7 commented Aug 17, 2020

Well I would consider unstable packages and unstable apis separate things, as an example we generally don't rename packages on unstable either without adding an alias for compatibility. As it stands there's no way to provide a transition window while still allowing rolling package updates, which is what most people use in practice.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants