Now that we have a few things identifying content address methods by
name, we should be consistent about it.
Move up the `parseHashAlgoOpt` for tidiness too.
Discussed this change for consistency's sake as part of #8876
Co-authored-by: Eelco Dolstra <edolstra@gmail.com>
* show Nix logo in the manual
the location of files is hard-coded by mdBook.
there is also seems to be no way to define custom templates, therefore
all styling has to be done in the CSS override.
Co-authored-by: Robert Hensing <roberth@users.noreply.github.com>
I was using by mistake the .#nix-clangStdenv shell to retrieve clangd.
This clangd is unusable with the project and constantly segfaults.
Let's explicitly state which shell the user should use in the docs.
I don't really understand the source of this segfault. I assume it's
related to a clang version incompatibility. (16.0.6 for
.#nix-clangStdenv 14.0.6 for .#native-clangStdenvPackages)
- Align the “frequent” release cycle with the calendar
- The 6-month release cycle is hard to keep track of. A monthly
release will make it much easier to remember the release date.
- Officialise the support for a stable version maintained for as long as NixOS stable
- This is already the case in practice, it just happens that the
“stable” Nixpkgs version is whichever version was deemed
stable-enough at the time of the NixOS release.
Officialise that by cutting a new major release alongside each NixOS one.
Note that this breaks whatever semver compatibility Nix might pretend to
have, but I don't think it makes sense any way.
previously we reported the error at the beginning of the binding
block (for plain inherits) or the beginning of the attr list (for
inherit-from), effectively hiding where exactly the error happened.
this also carries over to runtime positions of attributes in sets as
reported by unsafeGetAttrPos. we're not worried about this changing
observable eval behavior because it *is* marked unsafe, and the new
behavior is much more useful.
we already normalize attr order to lexicographic, doing the same for
formals makes sense. doubly so because the order of formals would
otherwise depend on the context of the expression, which is not quite as
useful as one might expect.
