Remove support for by-name overrides#181
Closed
wolfgangwalther wants to merge 1 commit intoNixOS:mainfrom
Closed
Conversation
wolfgangwalther
force-pushed
the
no-by-name-overwrites
branch
from
ff6c703 to
8811f25
Compare
willbush
approved these changes
Oct 29, 2025
wolfgangwalther
force-pushed
the
no-by-name-overwrites
branch
from
8811f25 to
4e00d9a
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
Just rebased after merging #183. |
Member
Very late, but: it absolutely would! How is #454525 coming along? |
Contributor
Author
I'm not pursuing that anymore, because of NixOS/nixpkgs#469692. Good luck :) |
This was referenced Jan 25, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is for when NixOS/nixpkgs#454525 is done.
It should be fine to implement that nixpkgs-side check only on unstable, but still remove it from nixpkgs-vet for both branches. 25.05 will not be alive much longer and it's very unlikely that backports would introduce bad code that way. And even if they do - it doesn't really matter in the bigger picture.
I'm hoping this would make #180 simpler. cc @mdaniels5757