-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 56
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
Why not use flake inputs for sources? #388
Comments
Catppuccin has over 300 ports. If we eventually get up to that 300, having all those inputs would slow down the eval alot. And in terms of keeping track and updated no not really since nvfetcher will keep the ports updated too.
You can still do that with the current integration. To do so you need to:
Also we have plans to start using packages for ports see #384. |
The above is the gist of it, but I also want to note that keeping compatibility with stable Nix is also something considered in how we fetch our sources |
Is there a way to permit users the choice between upstream sources as flake inputs and packages, perhaps? |
Users can set There isn't an easy way to do this upstream, though. It would require a good amount of work to keep both packages and the inputs up to date and tested -- not to mention that Flake inputs can't even be used for everything, as we have to build some ports. I also don't really see why we would in the first place; packages either offer the same evaluation performance or far better in all ports |
As the title states, why aren't the sources being managed by the flake.nix's inputs? Isn't that what its best for(keeping track and updating git repos)?
This would also make overriding the sources a bit easier and also testing development versions as we can just use a local path.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: