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

Allow per deployment.nixPath .importPath #55

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

sorki
Copy link

@sorki sorki commented Apr 14, 2019

Useful for mixing various version of nixpkgs and OSes.

See examples/pinning.nix

Useful for mixing various version of nixpkgs.

See examples/pinning.nix
@sorki
Copy link
Author

sorki commented Apr 14, 2019

Different take on #34, similar to NixOS/nixops#665

@johanot
Copy link
Contributor

johanot commented Apr 16, 2019

@sorki Thanks for the PR! First glance looks good to me.

To be honest, I was about to look into an adoption of the fix involving pkgs.appendOverlays as described in #34, since 19.03 is now stable.

This PR doesn't solve #34 though? i.e. the nixpkgs.pkgs option will still be ignored, right?
Question is: How much do we care?

Personally, I'd like it better if we could get nixpkgs.pkgs to work as expected, but that comes with it's own set of drawbacks. I'm interested in hearing your opinion as well @Shados . :-)

…ment.nixPath

Avoids problems with imports = [ <nixpkgs/...> ]
@mmahut
Copy link

mmahut commented May 19, 2019

Just wanted to follow up on this pull request. What is needed to move this forward?

@sorki
Copy link
Author

sorki commented Aug 31, 2019

The company I wrote this for has no need for this anymore as they jumped to their own solution so this can be closed - I know of one user that still uses it but they can rely on my fork / overlay with this patch. Downsides of merging this is that it increases the complexity and when actually used it increases memory consumption quite a bit due to missing memoization during evaluation.

@mmilata
Copy link

mmilata commented Mar 29, 2020

This PR is obsoleted by #67, correct?

@sorki
Copy link
Author

sorki commented Mar 31, 2020

Pretty much, it's not completely the same as scoped imports but looks even more flexible.

@sorki sorki closed this Mar 31, 2020
mmilata added a commit to otevrenamesta/otevrenamesta-cz-configuration that referenced this pull request Jul 3, 2020
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.

4 participants